Truck AccidentsPossible Defendants In Truck Accidents

A driver, whether an employee or independent contractor of a motor carrier will be directly responsible for their own negligence that caused a truck accident. However, larger entities, such as the motor carrier itself can be found liable in a truck accident as well, providing for better compensation for the injuries victims suffer at the hands of commercial truck drivers.

Under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR) §383.5, an employee is defined as any operator of a commercial vehicle, including full time W-2 employees; casual or occasional drivers; and independent contractors who are operating a commercial motor vehicle under lease to an employer.

An independent contractor’s actions may give rise to vicarious liability of the motor carrier if the motor carrier had control or possession of the commercial motor vehicle at issue and leased the vehicle out.

Motor carriers are defined by FMCSR § 390.5 as a for-hire motor carrier or a private motor carrier, this also includes the motor carrier’s agents, officers, representatives, and employees responsible for hiring, supervising, training, assigning, maintenance and inspection, or the dispatching of drivers. Therefore, motor carriers are not just limited to vicarious liability for an employee’s actions, but can be found directly liable.

Negligence on behalf of a motor carrier can be established by their defined duties required by law promulgated by the United States Department of Transportation and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. 49 CFR § 390.11 requires dual compliance of the regulations set forth in the FMCSR by requiring motor carriers to observe the drivers to ensure that they are following their duties or prohibitions. Even more so, a motor carrier can be found liable for aiding, abetting, encouraging, or requiring its employees to violate the rules of the FMCSR through 49 CFR § 390.13.

Examples of a breach of a motor carrier’s duties set forth above are requiring drivers to maintain the normal operations of the commercial motor vehicle in hazardous or extreme conditions as defined by FMCSR § 392.14; failing to ensure the commercial motor vehicle is equipped with warning devices required for stopped commercial motor vehicles on the shoulder of a highway set forth in FMCSR § 392.22; failing to enforce maximum hours of service under FMCSR § 395.3; among many others such as negligent hiring and retention.

There is a single caveat, however, stemming from a single rule established by the Supreme Court of Missouri in the 1995 case: McHaffie v. Bunch. Commonly known as the “McHaffie Rule” or the “Business Immunity Rule”, this rule establishes that when a motor carrier makes an admission to vicarious liability for the negligence of their employee, the motor carrier will not also be responsible for any direct negligence they otherwise would be liable for.

As per the FMCSR, a broker is defined as “a person who, for compensation, arranges or offers to arrange, the transportation of property by an authorized motor carrier.”

Even though brokers are the middlemen, they too can be found liable for a motor vehicle accident involving a commercial vehicle. One key cause of action against a broker is negligent hiring/selection of a motor carrier. In the recent Supreme Court of the United States case Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, the Court held in a unanimous decision that a negligent hiring claim falls within the safety exception to the preemption provision of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act. In doing so, the Court solidified this cause of action when brokers hire/select motor carriers with poor safety ratings stemming from deficiencies in: the qualifications of drivers; hours of service of drivers; inspection, repair and maintenance; recordable crash rates; and more.

If direct liability cannot be found because the motor carrier has a satisfactory safety rating with a poor driver, there may be an alternative avenue. At times brokers enter into the transportation chain as motor carriers. A shipper may reach out to what they believe to be a motor carrier to transport a load to a receiver. However, if this alleged motor carrier does not have any available trucks, equipment or even time to transport the load they will often broker the load to another motor carrier. Sometimes this process even develops without the knowledge of the shipper. Under 49 CFR § 371.2(a) an entity is not a broker “when they arrange or offer to arrange the transportation of shipments which they are authorized to transport and which they have accepted and legally bound themselves to transport.” Courts have found, consistent with this definition, that an entity is a motor carrier if it takes responsibility for a shipment, whether or not it performed the actual transportation or labels itself as a broker.

The Courts have also developed a set of factors that they examine when determining whether an entity claiming to be a broker is actually a motor carrier and subject to direct or vicarious liability. In Essex Ins. Co. v. Barrett Moving & Storage, Inc., the Court emphasized the importance of examining the contractual language that denotes the role of the entity to the shipper. However if no such writing exists, like in the case of Ortiz v. Ben Strong Trucking, Inc., the Court may examine: (1) whether the entity promised to personally perform the transport and therefore legally bound itself to transport; (2) the type of services the entity offers; (3) whether the entity held itself out to the public as the actual transporter of goods; and (4) whether the entity’s only role was to secure a third party to ship the goods. If it is found that a broker is actual acting as a motor carrier, then any cause of action that applies to motor carriers could apply to this entity.

Shippers, as per the FMCSR § 390.5, are defined as a person or entity “who tenders property to a motor carrier or driver of a commercial motor vehicle for transportation in interstate commerce…”Shippers are generally subjected to the same liability claims as brokers.

For instance, if a shipper directly hires a motor carrier to transport a load, rather than having a broker arrange for the transportation, then shippers too can be found liable for negligent hiring and selection of motor carriers with poor safety ratings stemming from deficiencies in: the qualifications of drivers; hours of service of drivers; inspection, repair and maintenance; recordable crash rates; etc.

However, many shipping entities have developed their own standards for contracted carries that sometimes exceed the standards utilized by large brokers. This does not make it impossible to find them liable for the damage caused by a commercial truck driver, these safeguards just make it more difficult to find.

Under FMCSR § 390.5, a receiver or consignee is “a person who takes delivery from a motor carrier or driver of a commercial motor vehicle of property transported in interstate commerce…” Generally speaking, receivers cannot be found vicariously liable or directly negligent for the actions of a driver of a commercial motor vehicle because they do not possess any control over the hiring/firing, route selection, or hours of service of the driver.