CVN screenshot of plaintiff attorney Tom D'Amore delivering his opening statement
Eugene, OR - An Oregon state court jury heard opening statements Friday in a wrongful death lawsuit blaming a logging company for hiring a driver who wrecked his truck while intoxicated and sent logs fatally crashing into another vehicle, and the trial is being webcast gavel-to-gavel by Courtroom View Network.
The case was filed by the family of Sarah Susman, who died in 2021 at the age of 25 after a driver for R&T Logging lost control of his overloaded truck while speeding. The truck’s driver, Shane McVay, was later sentenced to 10 years in prison for first-degree manslaughter and driving under the influence.
The lawsuit accuses R&T of engaging in "double brokering” - a practice involving contractors trading and swapping hauling jobs with minimal regulatory oversight - that can be so opaque shippers are often unaware which entity is actually moving their freight. The Susman family's attorneys seek $75 million in damages, but R&T maintains they reasonably relied on a solid recommendation from another company with an established reputation and shouldn’t be held responsible for the driver’s individual conduct.
The full trial, expected to last 3 weeks, is being webcast both live and on-demand via CVN.
Plaintiff attorney Tom D’Amore of D’Amore Law Group told the Lane County jury during Friday’s opening statements how another logging company, Starker Forests, hired R&T to transport downed trees. R&T then subcontracted the work to Wolf Creek Timber Services, but D’Amore said that process lacked critical vetting and confirmation of acceptable safety practices.
“R&T set up a system where untrained workers illegally loaded logs on a truck and allowed a random unvetted and intoxicated truck driver to transport logs,” D’Amore stated to jurors.
Representing R&T, defense attorney Jeffrey Hansen of Chock Barhoum LLP provided jurors with a detailed overview of the logging transport industry, but his arguments seemed more geared to preventing any award of punitive damages versus drawing a hard line on the liability question. He insisting that the assurances R&T received from Wolf Creek were adequate, and told jurors his expert witnesses on forestry practices would confirm that.
“It’s perfectly reasonable to accept a recommendation from a trusted colleague with a great reputation,” Hansen said. “R&T was certainly not reckless, and more probably than not given the totality of the circumstances, not negligent.”
The case is taking place before Judge Charles M. Zennache.
The case caption is Estate of Sarah Susman v. Starker Forests, et al. case number 23CV17883 in Lane County Circuit Court.
E-mail David Siegel at dsiegel@cvn.com