Chief Justice Roy Moore 5-9-2003
Ref: 1011475 ATS, Inc., and ATS, Inc. of
v.
Roger and Tami Nash
Dear Justice Moore,
We are writing again to ask you to reconsider the recent Alabama Supreme Court decision involving those responsible for the deaths of our 17-year-old son, Justin Nash, his 16-year-old friend, Josh Beddingfield, Josh’s aunt, 47–year-old Connie Beddingfield, and 70-year-old Jeannine Crawford.
We know that you probably receive many letters, such as this, for every decision that is made, but we just hope that we can say something that will cause you to understand just how difficult this decision is for us, and more importantly, it is our hope that you will come to see that this decision is the inappropriate decision for this case.
We are not lawyers, we are just average citizens. We know that our perspective of this case may be biased, but we feel that it is important that someone be held responsible. When you have had a child killed because of the carelessness of others, it is very hard to look at things from a casual viewpoint, but we have been asked to do that on numerous occasions.
For example, we were
asked to accept the fact that the truck driver would not face any criminal
punishment for causing the deaths of four people. The circumstances surrounding
the wreck were so unexplainable that he was arrested at the scene and charged
with four counts of Negligent Homicide. He just drove his truck into the back
of a stopped vehicle that had been sitting stopped for nearly a minute before
he came up behind them. He was not drunk
or on drugs, he was not speeding or driving “recklessly”, he just didn’t stop.
Although we, like the officer at the scene, still believe that it is negligent
and reckless to drive your 80,000 pound vehicle into the rear of a stopped car,
we have had to accept that the criminal
justice system does not often pursue traffic cases that involve negligence
unless there are drugs, alcohol, or speeding involved. His case was not held
over to the Grand Jury, and he was allowed to return to driving trucks. He
probably has sleep apnea, and continues to put the public at risk, but we are told there is nothing
we can do about it.
Then, we were asked
to accept the fact that the trucking company had no assets, was in debt, and
had the minimum amount of insurance, so we might as well settle for the
insurance and release him from the case. We didn’t want to, but we were asked
to accept the facts.
When we learned
about the driver being a leased employee, we looked at the relationships
between the parties involved, and determined by the documents and the facts,
that the leasing company was also partially responsible for the situation. We
had a judge here in Jefferson County agree that there was enough question about
the case that a jury should determine their liability. We went through two
weeks of a very difficult trial, and the facts convinced a very conservative
jury that the leasing company was jointly liable. At last we felt somewhat
vindicated.
But now, we are
asked to accept the judgment that, in spite of what the facts may point to, and
the documents may say, the leasing company is not the “real” employer of Roger
Walker. What else would they need to say, if indeed, they wanted to be held
responsible for him? Not a single person to whom we have shown the “ATS
Acceptance of Employment”, can believe that this court ruled that ATS is not
responsible for Roger Walker. We always believed that a judge’s job was to look
at the facts of the individual case - not at the way an industry wants it to
be, but to look at the truth as determined by the facts in that case.
If the Employee
Leasing companies want to be just a provider of administrative duties, without
the liability of being the employer, then let them structure their industry
that way. Let them do away with the underhanded deceit of operating within
loopholes in the law. Why can’t they be open in their advertising, and honest
in the wording of their contracts? Because if they were forced to do so, their
services would not seem to be the value to small companies that they want them
to appear to be. They would loose business. Although they advertise otherwise,
ATS was more concerned with making a profit than with making sure that the
drivers they lease are safe and qualified. That is what came to light in our
two weeks in court.
It was easy to go to
the Internet and look up the cases that were referenced in Justice See’s
opinion. It was also easy to look for other cases that involve the “borrowed
servant” argument. What amazed us were the contradictions and inconsistencies
from one opinion to the next, even within the same State. It looks as if a
Court could uphold ether side of this issue; depending on who they want to
protect. We pray that this Court will take the side that is based on honesty,
truth and the protection of innocent victims, and not the side based on deceit,
deception and loopholes used by big companies.
Please understand
that we do not want this letter, in any way, to seem disrespectful to the
highest court in our state. In fact, we have the highest regard for all the
Justices of the Alabama Supreme Court. That is why we were so shocked with the
ruling that was given. It is just that we are no longer willing to accept
defeat. Those that contributed to Justin’s death in any way must be held
accountable. Would you not do as much for your child?
But we are convinced
that upon honest review of the facts, this court will ultimately let the Jury
decision stand. Perhaps then, as has happened in other states, legislation
can be passed to deal with the issue of employee leasing company practices.
This would be one more step on the way to making our roads safer.
May God continue to bless you and guide you in all your decisions.
Roger & Tami Nash
5195 Tyler Oaks Drive
Mount Olive, Alabama 35117
205-631-0391