[eshack94]

If I'm not mistaken, that's the point the person above you was making. Those stickers on dump trucks that say "Stay back 200 feet. Not responsible for broken windshields" are worthless from a legal perspective.

They do absolutely nothing to remove liability from the truck driver/company. If a rock falls from their truck and cracks your windshield, they absolutely are responsible for any damages.

Rather, their sole value is to convince drivers that the trucking companies aren't at fault, so that drivers whose vehicles are damaged from falling rocks erroneously elect not to press charges or pursue damages.

[dexterdog]

Isn't their sole value to keep most people back far enough so they don't get their windshields broken?

[eshack94]

Actually yeah, you're probably right. That's probably their main value followed by what I commented originally (in the case drivers aren't far enough back and get hit by a rock).

[ironick09]

i’m guessing you have a problem with signs that say “danger, do not enter” as well

[listenallyall]

Such a lawsuit, if one was filed, would be in civil court, where nothing is guaranteed. If, in the unlikely case that the suit was not settled and it actually went to jury, no judge would direct that jury that truckers "absolutely are responsible for any damages."

If you are tailgating directly behind a rock truck with a big sign "stay back 200 feet" for an extended period of time, or end up right behind the truck because you're in a big hurry, or because you thought you could squeeze through an empty lane, a good lawyer could absolutely argue, successfully, that you are at least halfway responsible for the damage, if not 100%.

[eweise]

I disagree. Likely this type of suite would be handled in small claims court so there is no jury and no lawyers. Also, the law is really clear. There is no scenario where trucks are allowed to spill stuff on the road. The only argument they might try is to say that the rock didn't come from the truck but was kicked up off the road as they drove. But you know, that's probably not going to work if the truck was indeed carrying rocks. I think you might be giving lawyers too much credit. Really all they will do, is make it so painful for you to get in front of a judge, that you give up.

[listenallyall]

Small claims court is civil court

> the law is really clear

what law are you quoting? in what city/state/country?

I certainly agree that in many cases a rock truck causes damage to entirely innocent drivers who happened to get in the vicinity of spilled rocks without ever intending to (for example if the rock truck passes them, or at intersections, etc.

However -- you said "they absolutely are responsible" and I'm saying, no, it depends. Rock trucks are annoying and dangerous but are clearly necessary for cities to build roads and other infrastructure. Unfortunately, it seems impossible to fully, absolutely secure a rock truck. If a rock truck company came to court prepared with evidence that it had followed (or exceeded) every safety and regulatory procedure, and perhaps that its accident rate is lower than industry average, and further, that the "victim" was tailgating right behind the rock truck (probably in attempt to pass) despite a prominent "stay back 200 feet" sign, even a small-claims judge might say, it's half-and-half, or -- especially if the truck had video of the other driver performing a dangerous maneuver -- that it's actually the driver's fault and therefore no liability from the rock truck company.

> Really all they will do, is make it so painful for you to get in front of a judge, that you give up.

because a dangerous driver will realize that their case is extremely weak due to failing to follow the 200-ft sign. mission accomplished.