Death by negligence: Lessons learned from one supervisor ignoring maintenance complaint

Have you ever gone toe-to-toe with a driver over whether a truck was roadworthy and safe to drive? If so, whose opinion prevailed?

To be clear, opinion shouldn't even be considered in such a discussion. In most cases, regulations cover vehicle fitness. If anything, it might be a matter of interpretation, but certainly not opinion. 

But just such a scenario played out between a dump truck driver and his supervisor back in September 2020 near the Canadian city of Alliston, Ontario—about 50 miles north of Toronto. The driver said the truck was unsafe due to steering issues, but the supervisor insisted it had passed inspection and was safe.

The driver, Denis Garant, ended up losing the argument that night, and the next day lost control of the truck, a 2006 Freightliner, when a steer tire failed. The truck veered into a ditch and Garant was killed. Earlier this July, a Canadian court found the supervisor, Milton Urgiles, guilty of criminal negligence.

Because of this differing of opinion, a wife is now a widow and children now fatherless. And Urgiles could likely see a serious amount of prison time. The Canadian maximum punishment for criminal negligence is life imprisonment. I don't wish either on anyone, so let's talk about the details of the case so you can avoid anything remotely close to this happening to you.

Facts of the case

According to text messages obtained by the prosecution, on Sept. 21, 2020, Garant told Urgiles the truck he was driving had a steering problem related to a bent tie rod. It was portrayed as an alignment problem that had caused severe tread wear to the left steer tire. He didn't feel safe.

The 46-year-old Urgiles disagreed, insisting the truck was safe to drive. He then provided Garant with info on the worksite he was to drive to. On September 22, 2020, Garant was killed when that same left steer tire blew out, causing the truck to veer left, leave the road, and crash into a ditch before hitting a tree.

Urgiles was arrested eight months later as the truck was deemed to have a mechanical defect, and that Urgiles was informed of the issue but chose to ignore it.

The trucking company EcuaCan Excavating is owned by Urgiles' common-law wife, Janeth Zambrano, who repeatedly avoided being served subpoenas, CTVNews reported. Urgiles testified he checked the truck the night before the crash and said he asked Garant to tell him if he saw any issues during the pre-trip inspection. 

Urgiles also testified the left steer tire blew a few weeks earlier and both right and left steer tires were replaced, CTVNews reported.

Published reports had two expert witnesses testifying at trial. One was a police forensic mechanic testifying for the prosecution. Testifying for the defense was a long-time field engineer from a tire manufacturer, now consulting on tire forensics and tire failures.

Both agreed the tread on the left front tire was so badly worn the truck should not have been on the road. The police forensic expert concluded the defective tire exploded, causing the crash.

The tire consultant acknowledged the tire had irregular wear and tear due to the alignment issue but said that likely wasn't the cause of the failure. He suggested an impact with some object on the road, or a pothole was ultimately responsible for the failure.

Yet another witness testified the truck should not have been driven with a bent tie rod.

In early July, as a result of the crash, Urgiles was found guilty in an Ontario courtroom of criminal negligence causing death.

In rendering her verdict, the judge said there was no doubt the failed tire caused the crash. According to a report from CTV News, Justice Mary Vallee said Urgiles failed in his supervisory duty to have the truck inspected by a licensed mechanic before sending it out on the road.

Because of a lack of knowledge of the rules, and a lack of understanding by both men of their moral and legal obligations with respect to operating unsafe equipment, one man is dead, and another is facing jail time.

Unambiguous rules

Neither the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations nor the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance's North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria handbook make specific references to bent tie rods. But I think we all understand the implications of bent tie rods.

(Just to be clear, U.S. and Canadian regulations are very similar when it comes to vehicle condition and roadworthiness.)

The defective steer tire, on the other hand, had out-of-service written all over it.  

49CFR 393.75 (tires) (a) states "no vehicle shall be operated on any tire that (1) has body ply or belt material exposed through the tread or sidewall, and (b) any tire on the front wheels of a truck shall have a tread groove pattern depth of at least 4/32 when measured at any point on a major tread grove."

CVSA's OOS guide says an out of service condition exists when any tire on any front steering axle with less than 2/32 measured in any two adjacent tread groves ... And, when any sidewall cord is exposed, or when any part of the belt or casing material is showing in the tread.

The tire at the center of this case, by the descriptions provided in the media, certainly would have been placed out of service at any roadside Level 1 inspection.

This former trucker's take

I'd venture to guess neither the driver, Galant, or the supervisor, Urgiles, were functionally literate in the rules and regulation governing the mechanical condition of commercial vehicles.

During the trial, Urgiles repeatedly insisted he inspected the truck the night before the crash and found nothing wrong with it. Nothing was said in the reporting about his qualifications as a mechanic or his ability to judge a safe vehicle from another.

There are no required qualifications or credentials to hold the position of fleet manager, or "supervisor" at a truck fleet. There certainly are credentials one can earn, but they are not mandatory.

The real puzzlement here is the driver. He made the initial complaint, by text message, directly to Urgiles. Why did he continue driving the truck?

Perhaps it was the economic disincentive to missing a day's work. Wouldn't it be nice if drivers were instead incentivized to report defects, with no loss of pay while the truck was down for repairs?

I can't imagine he was afraid of losing his job for refusing to drive the truck. He would have been working again in no time had he quit or been fired for refusing to drive the truck.

It has been my experience, with 20+ years driving over the road, that drivers get used to risk. It's a risky job at the best of times. If you do something risky one day and get away with it, you'll try it again.

What's the protocol at your fleet? Do you support your drivers' concerns about the condition of their equipment? Do you provide training and education on identifying defects and understanding the implications of unsafe equipment? Or are they bullied into getting the load down the road regardless of their concerns?

49CFR § 392.1 makes it pretty clear: safety is a joint responsibility: (a) Every motor carrier, its officers, agents, representatives, and employees responsible for the management, maintenance, operation, or driving of commercial motor vehicles, or the hiring, supervising, training, assigning, or dispatching of drivers, shall be instructed in and comply with the rules in this part.

So if you truly want to avoid tragedies like this at your fleet train your drivers, technicians, and management on the actual rules and give them the confidence to speak up when something isn't right.