It depends on the particular circumstances of each case, but oftentimes there are multiple defendants in a trucking accident case. The most commonly sued parties are the driver of the truck, the owner of the truck, and the company who contracted with or employed the driver. Typically, all three of these parties are sued in a case. 

But these are not the only possible defendants. There could be claims against the safety director for the trucking company, the diesel mechanic, or the vehicle inspector. Again, it depends upon the specific factual circumstances and probable causes of the accident. 

As stated on its website, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is “the lead federal government agency responsible for regulating and providing safety oversight of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs), FMCSA’s mission is to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities involving large trucks and buses.”

The agency passes regulations, including the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, that are germane in trucking litigation cases.  For example, 49 C.F.R. §392.2 provides:

Every commercial motor vehicle must be operated in accordance with the laws, ordinances, and regulations of the jurisdiction in which it is being operated. However, if a regulation of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration imposes a higher standard of care than that law, ordinance or regulation, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration regulation must be complied with.

This means that oftentimes plaintiffs in trucking litigation cases assert that a truck operator, manager, or owner was negligent for failing to adhere to a FMCSA regulation.

There generally are five required elements to a negligent entrustment claim. The plaintiff must show the following: (1) entrustment of the vehicle by its owner or custodian (2) to an incompetent driver (3) that the owner knew or should have known was unlicensed, incompetent, or reckless, (4) that the driver was negligent, and (5) the driver’s negligence proximately caused the accident. 

It is somewhat similar to a negligent hiring/retention claim. The bottom line to these claims is that the trucking company had some clear knowledge (or should have) that this was a risky driver who should not have been operating the vehicle.

A truck company could be liable for a negligent hiring case if the company knew or should have known that the driver was a risky driver.

For example, let’s say that a truck driver allegedly caused an accident with a plaintiff. The plaintiff’s lawyer learns that this particular truck driver has a history of speeding violations and previous accidents. If the trucking company knew of these previous traffic violations and still hired the truck driver, that could form the basis for a cognizable negligent hire or negligent entrustment case.

In other words, it was negligent for the trucking company to hire a driver with such a poor driving record. The trucking company knew this driver posed a risk to other drivers on the road because of his poor driving history.  

There generally needs to be a clear nexus, or connection, between the prior violations of the driver and the current accident.  For example, a federal district court in Texas once explained that “[c]onvictions for domestic violence and possession with intent to distribute, along with traffic violations unrelated to unsafe driving, lack the nexus to the accident in question to establish liability for negligent hiring.”   However, if the prior incidents involved acts of unsafe driving, that might very well have been a different story, as there is a much closer nexus.

The Clearinghouse database refers to the Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse (often called just “Clearinghouse”) established by the Federal Motor Carrier Administration.  This database contains information related to when the holder of a commercial driver’s license violates Department of Transportation rules regarding alcohol and drug use. 

The Clearinghouse rule requires employers of commercial motor vehicle drivers to query the Clearinghouse for current and prospective employees’ drug and alcohol violations before permitting those employees to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) on public roads. Under the Clearinghouse rule, the employers must conduct such a query every year for each driver they employ.

Hours of service requirements refer to the amount of time that a commercial motor vehicle operator may drive within a given time period. The idea behind hours of service regulations is that operators can become fatigued and less aware if they log too many driving hours within a certain period of time.  In other words, the hours of service rules are designed to reduce driver drowsiness and, thus, reduce the number of accidents.

In trucking litigation, a plaintiff may discover that a truck driver simply logged too many hours in a given day or week. This information could be useful to the plaintiff in order to show that a likely cause or contributing factor to the accident was a drowsy, overworked driver. For example, one common “hours of service” rule is that a commercial truck driver cannot drive more than 14 hours in a day. If a plaintiff can establish that a trucking employer regularly had its drivers operate trucks in violation of the hours of service rules, that could be quite damaging to the defendant-employer.

Yes, those with a commercial driver’s license (CDL) are required to be tested at the pre-employment phase, could be subject to a drug test after an accident, and could be subject to random drug testing.  

Drivers must be drug tested before an employer can hire them to operate their vehicles. The employer must receive a negative drug test before allowing the person to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV).  Then, those drivers often are subject to drug testing after she or has been involved in an accident, depending upon the type of accident.

For example, if a truck driver is involved in an accident that leads to a human fatality, the driver must be drug tested. So, there is mandatory drug testing at the pre-employment phase and often the post-accident phase.  Those who employ commercial motor vehicle drivers also must institute a program that requires random drug tests. Depending upon the size of the company, a certain percentage of the drivers will be randomly drug tested each year. An employer also is supposed to drug test a driver when the employer has reasonable suspicion that the driver may be operating a vehicle under the use of illegal drugs.