Litigation lessons learned: What waste operators can do to prevent the next incident

In the waste and recycling industry, serious incidents rarely stem from a single mistake. When incidents are examined in litigation, the outcomes follow a familiar, repeatable pattern: a predictable hazard, an incomplete or poorly implemented control, a missed verification step and documentation that cannot demonstrate that the operator did what a prudent operator should have done.

In my prior Waste Today article, “Accident investigation in preparation for litigation: A waste industry playbook,” I focused on what operators should do immediately after an incident because the first 48 hours often shape the legal, operational and reputational trajectory. This article is the prevention counterpart: How lessons from catastrophic claims can teach operators to reduce risk before the next incident and strengthen defensibility when it does occur.

Waste Today’s editorial focus emphasizes practical, solutions-oriented guidance grounded in real industry experience. That is the intent here: actionable prevention strategies informed by field operations and courtroom analysis.

Why the litigation lens matters, even if you never go to court

Operators do not set out to “manage for litigation.” But litigation functions as an unforgiving after-action review. It evaluates whether an organization:

• identified foreseeable hazards;
• put adequate controls in place;
• trained employees to execute those controls;
• supervised and enforced compliance;
• maintained equipment and sites safely; and
• kept records that accurately reflect reality.

When one or more of these elements is weak, the narrative becomes: “They knew—or should have known—and didn’t do enough.”

When those elements are strong, the narrative shifts to: “They planned, trained, verified and continuously improved.”

Across cases involving garbage trucks, transfer stations and landfills nationwide, the same causal factors recur. Understanding these patterns allows operators to intervene early, before incidents, injuries or fatalities occur.

The eight failure patterns that repeatedly drive serious incidents and how to break them

When serious incidents are reconstructed in litigation, a consistent truth emerges: The same operational breakdowns recur across company size, geography and whether the work involves curbside collection, transfer stations or landfill operations.

The legal system does not evaluate incidents in isolation; it evaluates systems. Specifically, it examines whether organizations anticipated foreseeable risks, established clear rules to control those risks, trained employees to follow those rules and verified that those rules were applied in the field.

The eight categories below represent the most common failure patterns observed across waste-industry litigation nationwide. Together, they form a practical framework for understanding:

• what goes wrong before serious incidents occur;
• why those failures matter from both a safety and legal standpoint; and
• how operators can intervene with targeted, field-ready controls.

1. Visibility and “line-of-fire” exposures in collection operations

Visibility failures remain one of the most persistent and deadly risk factors in residential, commercial and industrial waste and recycling collection operations. These incidents are rarely the result of reckless behavior; more often, they occur during routine operations when vehicle blind spots, pedestrian movement or momentary distractions intersect. From a litigation perspective, visibility-related incidents quickly turn into examinations of training quality, scanning discipline, vehicle design awareness and whether operators adequately were prepared to manage known line-of-fire hazards inherent in collection work.

What goes wrong

Many catastrophic collection incidents stem from a loss of situational awareness: pedestrian proximity, helper positioning, vehicle blind spots, sun glare, mirror or camera limitations or routine maneuvers around parked vehicles that become hazardous in seconds.

The risk is well-documented. In 2023, refuse and recyclable material collection had a fatality rate of 41.4 deaths per 100,000 workers, making it one of the most dangerous occupations in the United States. transportation incidents account for the majority of these fatalities.

A real-world case example

The following example is based on a real case I handled as an expert witness in a residential curbside collection fatality involving a right-side-drive garbage truck; identifying details have been omitted.. A comprehensive review of the company’s safety policies, training materials, driver behavior and visual scanning practices revealed inadequate training, deficient procedures and a failure to address known blind spots inherent to the vehicle design.

During a routine collection route, a woman was run over and crushed to death. Neither the company’s formal training program nor on-the-job coaching adequately addressed how operators were expected to scan, compensate for blind spots or manage pedestrian exposure around a right-side-drive vehicle. The tragedy was preventable and underscores the need for explicit, trained, verified and enforced visual-scanning discipline and line-of-fire management.

Prevention moves that work

• Define a “line-of-fire” rule set for each collection mode (automated side-load, rear-load, front-load and roll off).
• Standardize mirror and camera checks at startup, before moving from a stop and before lateral maneuvers.
• Implement sun-glare protocols requiring speed reduction and a stop-and-reset when visibility is compromised.
• Identify and preplan high-risk streets with narrow lanes, chronically crowded parking or pedestrian activity.

Litigation lesson: “We train drivers to watch mirrors” is not enough. Courts expect specific procedures, reinforcement and proof of execution.

2) Backing and low-speed maneuvering

Backing and low-speed maneuvers deceptively are high-risk because they occur frequently, feel routine and often happen in confined or congested environments. These incidents consistently result in severe injuries and fatalities, particularly involving helpers, pedestrians or workers on foot. In litigation, the success of backing cases hinges on whether operators had a clear backing hierarchy, whether spotters were adequately trained and used and whether backing was treated as an exception rather than the default.

What goes wrong

Backing incidents remain a leading cause of severe injury and fatalities involving helpers, pedestrians and workers on foot.

Prevention moves that work

• Adopt a formal backing hierarchy:
1. Avoid backing where feasible.
2. Require a spotter or a verified clear zone.
3. If no spotter is available, require a mandatory get out and look (GOAL) stop-and-verify procedure before backing or repositioning.
• Qualify and train spotters; do not assume competency.
• Enforce creep-speed backing (2-3 mph).
• Actively enforce no-distraction policies, i.e., prohibit cellular phone use, earbuds, headsets, etc.

Litigation lesson: Backup alarms and cameras alone are not a defense. What matters is procedure, supervision and verification.

3) Transfer station public unloading

Transfer stations present a uniquely hazardous environment where public users (self-haul), commercial garbage trucks, transfer trucks and trailers, other on-site heavy equipment and facility staff occupy the same space. Unlike controlled industrial settings, public behavior inherently is unpredictable, making clear rules and supervision (management, traffic safety spotters, scalehouse attendants and other on-site staff), as well as physical controls, essential. Litigation involving transfer station injuries often focuses on whether operators anticipated foreseeable public actions and implemented, maintained and adhered to reasonable policies, procedures and on-site systems (cameras, horns, alarms and other warning systems and methods) to manage mixed traffic and equipment interfaces.

What goes wrong

Transfer station injuries often involve public users unloading in proximity to active heavy equipment, unclear traffic control and inconsistent supervision.

Prevention moves that work

• Establish clear inbound and outbound traffic control with physical delineation.
• Use clear and legible posted warning and directional traffic flow signs.
• Define exclusion zones around mobile equipment.
• Standardize rules governing public behavior and stop-work triggers.
• Perform daily floor inspections addressing visibility, debris and surface conditions.

Litigation lesson: Courts look for a reasonable system of control for foreseeable public behavior.

4) Landfill unloading and working-face stability

Landfill unloading operations expose drivers and equipment to dynamic ground conditions that can change rapidly because of weather, compaction and waste placement. Edge failures and ground instability are well-known hazards, yet they continue to cause serious incidents when inspection, setback and spotter protocols are inadequate. From a legal standpoint, these cases often examine whether warning signs were present, inspections were meaningful and supervisors acted decisively when conditions deteriorated.

What goes wrong

Landfill incidents frequently involve unstable dump pads, soft zones, inadequate setbacks and insufficient spotter use.

Prevention moves that work

• Clearly define and maintain unloading edges.
• Conduct routine inspections for instability.
• Establish weather- and ground-condition go/no-go criteria.
• Empower supervisors with immediate stop-work authority.

Litigation lesson: Written protocols, inspection records and timely corrective action often determine outcomes.

5) Equipment condition and maintenance

Equipment condition is a frequent focal point in litigation, not only because mechanical failures can contribute to incidents but also because maintenance records often are the first documents scrutinized after an event. Even well-maintained fleets can become legally vulnerable if inspection and repair documentation is inconsistent or incomplete. Courts and juries tend to equate poor records with poor maintenance, making process integrity as important as mechanical condition itself.

What goes wrong

Mechanical defects frequently are alleged, and weak maintenance documentation makes even strong programs difficult to defend.

Prevention moves that work

• Make driver-vehicle inspection reports (DVIRs) auditable, not perfunctory.
• Clearly define high-consequence defects.
• Close the loop on maintenance documentation.
• Validate safety-critical systems on a defined schedule.

Litigation lesson: A defensible maintenance story is simple: Issues are found early, fixed quickly and documented clearly.

6) Training that exists on paper but not in behavior

Many organizations invest significant resources in training programs, yet serious incidents continue to reveal gaps between written policies and actual field behavior. In litigation, this disconnect becomes evident during deposition testimony when employees cannot articulate procedures or recall alleged training. The issue is not whether training materials exist, but whether employees were genuinely prepared to execute critical tasks under real-world conditions.

What goes wrong

In depositions, employees commonly state: “I don’t remember,” “I wasn’t trained” or “We don’t really do it that way.”

Prevention moves that work

• Shift from “training completed” to competence verified.
• Use task sign-offs, ride-alongs and coaching logs.
• Train supervisors to observe, correct and document performance.

Litigation lesson: Paper programs without behavioral proof invite allegations of systemic negligence.

7) Communication failures and stop-work culture

Nearly every serious incident includes a moment when someone recognized a hazard but did not intervene. Whether because of unclear authority, fear of consequences or poor communication protocols, these failures often are central to causation and liability. A strong stop-work culture, supported by clear communication standards, can be one of the most potent indicators of reasonable care when incidents are evaluated postincident.

What goes wrong

Someone often sees a hazard but does not intervene or feel empowered to stop the operation.

Prevention moves that work

• Implement universal stop-work authority.
• Develop standard radio and hand-signal language.
• Require simple near-miss reporting with rapid feedback.

Litigation lesson: A credible stop-work culture is strong evidence of reasonable care.

8) Contract, franchise and third-party interface risks

Many waste operations involve multiple parties, municipalities, private haulers, subcontractors and vendors, creating blurred lines of responsibility. When incidents occur, litigation quickly focuses on who controlled the work, who set the rules and who enforced them. Operators who fail to clearly define and document these relationships often find themselves bearing responsibility for hazards they assumed belonged to others.

What goes wrong

Blurred accountability between operators, municipalities and contractors.

Prevention moves that work

• Clearly define roles, responsibilities and control.
• Perform contractor safety prequalification and audits.
• Tie contract performance to safety metrics.
• Document enforcement consistently.

Litigation lesson: When control is exercised, responsibility follows.

A practical “prevention + defensibility” checklist

For many organizations, safety improvements stall not because leaders don’t care but because the path forward feels too complex or overwhelming. This checklist distills the most common litigation lessons into 10 actionable steps that operators can implement without overhauling their entire organization.

These steps are intentionally practical. Each item addresses a control point that repeatedly is scrutinized after serious incidents by regulators, insurers and courts alike. Collectively, they help close the gap between written policy and field execution, strengthen operational discipline and improve an organization’s ability to demonstrate reasonable care when incidents occur.

If you do nothing else this quarter, start here:

1. Identify your top 10 high-risk tasks.
2. Write or refresh one-page standard operating procedures.
3. Train and verify competence in the field.
4. Implement and enforce a backing hierarchy.
5. Require spotter qualification.
6. Audit DVIR and maintenance closure.
7. Conduct weekly supervisor observations.
8. Implement a near-miss feedback loop.
9. Run quarterly incident response drills.
10. Tighten contract and franchise accountability.

Taken together, these ten actions represent more than a compliance exercise; they form a repeatable operating discipline. When implemented consistently, they help organizations shift from reactive problem-solving to proactive risk management, in which hazards are anticipated, controls are verified and gaps are corrected before they escalate into serious incidents.

Just as importantly, these steps create the documentation, behavioral consistency and supervisory oversight that define “reasonable care” when incidents are later examined. They do not eliminate risk, but they materially reduce both the likelihood of severe events and the resulting exposure when something does go wrong.

This is where prevention and defensibility converge, and it is the foundation for the broader mindset discussed in the closing thoughts that follow.

Preparedness is operational excellence and legal strength

The best operators don’t manage for litigation. They manage for safety, reliability and professionalism. Yet those same traits are precisely what courts, regulators and insurers examine after severe incidents.

At WIH Resource Group, we see this repeatedly. The courtroom may be months or years away, but the investigation begins immediately, and its quality often determines outcomes long before testimony is given.

Prevention, when done right, is not just good safety practice. It is operational excellence and legal strength. Preparedness isn’t optional; it’s the standard.

Bob Wallace is the president and founder of WIH Resource Group Inc. since 2005. With more than 40 years of hands-on consulting and expert witness experience in the waste, recycling and transportation industry and more than 1,100 consulting projects completed, he has served as an expert witness in more than 55 litigation cases involving garbage truck accidents, transfer station injuries, MRF incidents, waste disposal contract and waste collection franchise disputes, worker and pedestrian fatalities, personal injury accidents and landfill truck rollovers. He has represented plaintiffs and defendants in lawsuits. His firm also works with public agencies and private sector clients to improve their waste management, recycling, collection, transfer station, landfill and MRF operational, safety and financial performance. He also has assisted with regulatory compliance and legal defensibility in expert witness litigation matters. He can be reached at bwallace@wihresourcegroup.com or 480-241‑9994. Visit www.wihrg.com for more details.