Trucking Law Expert Answers if Truckers Have the Right to “Stand Your Ground” if Attacked

Little Rock, AR – As reports continue to emerge this week of rioters targeting big rigs amid the social unrest and outrage over the death of George Floyd, truckers are being faced with increasing dangers.

One trucker’s recent viral social media post urging drivers to use deadly force, if required, to protect yourself is sparking debate about the legal right to “stand your ground.”

It’s important for truckers to understand the law and your rights if, God forbid, you find yourself in a dangerous situation.




 

For answers, we turned to Joe Pappalardo of the Gallagher Sharp law firm in Cleveland, OH.

Pappalardo has been practicing law in the transportation industry for 40 years.

He spends most of his time representing trucking companies in complex and multi-million dollar accident cases, but jumped at the chance to discuss this ongoing issue.

Pappalardo says that if a trucker is faced with imminent harm or a “reasonable” fear of violence, he is within his rights to protect himself.

“If you use force that is intended or likely to cause great bodily harm to another, and if that person is in the process of unlawfully entering [your truck], then there is a presumption that you are allowed to use that force,” Pappalardo informed.




 

Specifically, he pointed to “stand your ground” laws, also sometimes referred to as the “Castle Doctrine.”

These laws in states across the country allow for people to defend themselves when threatened, especially while in their homes, but the latitude given varies from state to state.

For instance, Pappalardo looked up the law in Ohio and in the Buckeye State the stand your ground provision extends to your vehicle as well as your home.

Even in states that don’t have specific stand your ground laws, Pappalardo says a prosecutor would have to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the trucker acted with criminal intent which he said is a very “high standard” to meet.

However, the standard of proof is much lower in a civil case.




 

In those instances, Pappalardo says a “reasonable care” standard is applied.

“Think about what the average person being called for jury duty would think about this,” he urged. “There is going to be more than one version and the protesters are going to say something different than the trucker.”

What about the argument that a trucker used excessive force when it was the cargo the looters really wanted?

“The law would make a distinction between purely protecting property and protecting a person, but no one could know that they were only interested in packages, so it would be reasonable to assume that I, myself, is in danger and I have a right to get out of here,” Pappalardo explained.

Family of St. Louis Riot Victim Blames Trucker

One such civil case could soon make its way into the legal system after a St. Louis man was killed by a tractor-trailer amid a riot last weekend.

According to video evidence and authorities, 29-year-old Barry Perkins III of the Glasgow Village, along with a group of rioters, attacked a FedEx big rig in the early morning hours last Saturday.

 

Perkins became stuck on the converter dolly between the dual trailers.

As the truck pulled away, authorities say Perkins was caught by one of the tires and pulled under the rig.

He was dragged several blocks.

Perkins later died at a nearby hospital.


RECENTLY RELATED

Family of Man Killed by FedEx Big Rig During Riot Says Trucker is to Blame

Trucker Relives Dangerous Moments Before St. Louis Rioter Died Looting FedEx Big Rig

Trucker’s Viral Social Media Post Vows “We Will Not Be Reginald Denny”

Stay Aware of Areas Where Rioters Could be Targeting Big Rigs by Using This Online Tool


On Wednesday evening, the Associated Press reported The Witherspoon Law Group (WLG) was hired to represent the Perkins family.

In a statement through WLG, the family claims Perkins “was peacefully protesting the death of George Floyd and was not looting Saturday when he was dragged” by the FedEx truck, placing the blame on the driver.

“There is no justification for running over a human being with a semi-truck,” the statement said.

 

Should a civil suit be filed by Perkins’ family, Pappalardo says the law in this case protects the trucker and FedEx through what’s known as “expressed assumption of the risk.”

“No one is allowed to assume that kind of a risk and then sue someone when something bad happens,” he explained. “If someone puts themselves in a position of peril in that close proximity to a big truck or any vehicle that’s moving, then that person assumes the risk of being hurt or killed.”

Authorities have yet to reveal the identity of the trucker or indicate if he will face criminal charges.

Hate Speech or Inciting Violence?

Some on social media have accused truckers who have shared the viral post, or personally expressed similar sentiments, of promoting the very behavior they are condemning.

In fact, some are calling for those who are urging truckers to use lethal force, if necessary, to be prosecuted for “inciting violence” or even a “hate speech” crime.




 

Could someone be charged with such an offense?

Pappalardo says he sees no legal jeopardy there.

“You can’t prosecute someone for their thoughts. It might be a little strident, but I don’t think it would be prosecutable to just say that on Facebook. It doesn’t rise to the level of unprotected speech,” he stated.

 


FOLLOW TNN ON FACEBOOK & TWITTER


If you enjoyed this article, please help us grow by sharing it. Thank you!

Comment (3)

  1. Every one has the right to defend themselves from lethal harm. George Floyd had that right too and was denied that right by Excessive Police Force.
    Truck drivers have the right to defend and flee from harm involving fear for their lives. Mobs have removed drivers and beaten them to death.
    Mobs assume that risk of death by disabling truck safety devices in their attempts to gain access to drivers.

  2. Deadly force/stand your ground? But the few states that allow firearms across state lines, drivers havent done research or paperwork to be compliant w yhe law, thus they would save/end lives but fall to gun charges… &if dude wasnt looting how did he end up btw the doubles? At the least in &every protestor that disturbs a driver by approaching semi should be prosecuted for vandalism no matter the damage caused (attempt of theft or not)

  3. Me as a driver, im leaving the scene. If the protesters mean no harm, they wouldn’t get on top, inside, knock the glass out, or try to open the doors of my semi or trailer. If you think im waiting around for someone to do a Reginald Denny on me, their sadly mistaken. And to think that family has the nerve to file a lawsuit, is appalling to me anyway. He was back there looting with the rest of them. Why else be between the trailers? You shouldnt have been in the way, PERIOD! The family sounds like they want money. What if fedex had stopped? They would have pulled him out and beat him for sure. Family thinks thats ok though? They reported someone was pointing a gun at the driver as well. He did the right thing….get the hell out of there and dont look back. If they charge him, im going to start a protest, BECAUSE TRUCK DRIVERS LIVES MATTER TOO! As for the Kenan driver caught on the bridge with the tanker…there werent proper barricades up, or he wouldnt have gotten on the bridge. People were on top of a gasoline trailer and busting the glass in on the truck. They stole his wallet and personal belongings. Here again, i wouldnt have stopped. My life is important too. One spark could have ignited the gas, and the whole bridge would be a fireball. The media is to blame here too. He wasnt trying to kill anyone, or he wouldnt have stopped twice. He would have barreled to the far left at 60 + mph. All lies they told. We have to protect ourselves. Put zip ties around your glad hands so they cant easily be removed when you slow down or stop for a sec.

SHARE YOUR COMMENTS



Pin It on Pinterest

Share This