Introduction Welcome to TruckAccidentInfo.com. This blog has been created by the law Ohio law firm of Clark, Perdue & List Co, LPA as a public service to promote truck safety and as a resource to motorists who have been injured in truck crashes. If you have questions about this website or have additional questions about trucking accidents, please contact us through our website at www.ClarkPerdue.com.
|
The regulations designed to prevent commercial truck drivers from becoming too tired to drive safely are only effective if they are enforceable. Most drivers are paid by the mile. As a result, the incentive to break the hours of service rules is built into the system — sometimes with tragic results.
The rules impose daily and weekly limits on the number of hours commercial truck drivers are permitted to work. Generally, drivers are permitted to work no more than 14 consecutive hours. Of that time, only 11 hours may be devoted to driving. (The remaining time may be devoted to paperwork, loading and unloading, etc.) After exhausting these limits, drivers are required to spend a minimum of 10 consecutive hours off duty. The regulations also prohibit driving after being on-duty more than 60 hours in 7 consecutive days, or 70 hours in 8 consecutive days. Drivers may restart the 60 or 70 hour clock by taking no less than 34 consecutive hours off duty.
To assist in enforcing these regulations, drivers must record their status throughout the day as either “off-duty”, “sleeper berth”, “on duty, not driving”, or “driving.” There is concern, however, that some drivers may falsify their driver logs to circumvent the rules.
In 2004, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) proposed a rule to make it easier to verify that drivers follow the rules. The proposed rules required drivers to maintain “supporting documents” to verify the entries recorded in the driver’s log. In response to the proposed rule, however, the FMCSA received a large number of negative comments, mostly from within the trucking industry. As a result, the FMCSA withdrew the proposed rule as of October 25, 2007. For now, compliance with the federal hours of service regulations will remain frustratingly difficult to verify.
You can review the proposed rule, the public comments, and the withdraw of the rule by searching for Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) 2126-AA76 at http://www.regulations.gov/.
In the commercial trucking industry, there is always tension between highway safety and making money. The on-going debate about changes to the Hours of Service regulations show the kind of compromises made to accommodate these competing interests. (For an introduction to the Hours of Service regulations, see our previous post.)
In 1995, Congress ordered the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) to revise the Hours of Service regulations, the rules governing how long truck drivers may work before resting. The job fell to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) when that agency was created in 1999.
In May 2000, the FMCSA proposed new rules and invited public comment. The final rule adopted in April 2003, however, diluted the safety protections afforded in the proposed rules. The changes to the final regulations lead consumer safety advocates to challenge the new rule in Court. In its decision invalidating the new rule, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia criticized the rule changes as “arbitrary and capricious.” (The Truck Safety Coalition describes the unsafe features of the new regulations here.) The Court criticized the new rule for, among other things, increasing from 10 to 11 the number of consecutive hours drivers may drive before resting and for failing to require the use of electronic on-board recording devices to assure compliance with the rules despite evidence that these changes may be detrimental to public safety.
In July 2004, Congress temporarily rescued the new regulation by allowing it to become effective until the FMSCA considered and addressed the federal Court’s criticisms. In August 2005, FMSCA did just that by promulgating virtually the identical rule all over again. This time, FMSCA simply supported the changes with additional research and written findings.
Consumer advocacy groups again challenged the regulation in Court, claiming that the changes were detrimental to public safety. In its July 2007 Opinion, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals again invalidated portions of the new regulations, essentially finding that the FMSCA failed to publicly disclose its methodology in studying the new rules in time to allow public comment as required by law.
As recently as December 2007, the U.S. Senate held hearings about the new Hours of Service regulations. (These hearing can by viewed at C-Span website.) The debate, as it has for more than a decade, centered around the competition between public safety and trucking company profits. That debate, no doubt, will continue for years to come.
Commercial truck drivers work long hours under physically demanding conditions. Ensuring that drivers get enough rest is a critical component of truck safety. That is the purpose of the federal Hours of Service regulations.
Commercial truckers transporting property (the rules for passenger trucks are a bit different) are subject to daily and weekly limits on the number of hours they are permitted to work. Generally, drivers are permitted to work no more than 14 consecutive hours. Of that time, only 11 hours may be devoted to driving. (The remaining time may be devoted to paperwork, loading and unloading, etc.) After exhausting these limits, drivers are required to spend a minimum of 10 consecutive hours off duty.
Drivers are subject to weekly limits as well. The regulations prohibit driving after the driver has been on-duty 60 hours in 7 consecutive days, or 70 hours in 8 consecutive days. Drivers may restart the 60 or 70 hour clock by taking no less than 34 consecutive hours off duty.
Drivers must record their status throughout the day as either “off-duty”, “sleeper berth”, “on duty, not driving”, or “driving.” An example of a completed log book is provided by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration here.
In truck crash litigation, it is important to study the driver’s logbook, but that is only a first step. The Hours of Service regulations are well known in the trucking industry, and commercial truck drivers will rarely confess to a violation in the log book. The possibility of falsified log books must always be considered. Log book entries should be compared to other evidence including receipts for fuel and food, credit card statements, cell phone records, bills of lading and other shipping records, loading dock security logs and servailance tapes, and GPS tracking data. A determination about whether a trucking crash was caused by a violation of the Hours of Service rules can be made only after all of the evidence has been considered.
In July 2007, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) published the results of its 2005 Drug and Alcohol Survey. A commercial truck driver is in violation of FMCSA regulations when the BAC is greater than .02. Drivers testing at this level are not permitted to perform “safety-sensitive functions”, which includes driving, for at least 24 hours. A driver whose BAC exceeds .04 may not return to duty without submitting to further testing. Drivers are also tested for marijuana, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, and PCP.
The FMCSA reviewed the results of random drug and alcohol tests performed in 2005 of 117,000 truck drivers. Of that number, 1.7 percent failed the test for controlled substances and .2% failed the alcohol test. These results are simliar to the results reported for 2002 through 2004. Based on this information, the FMCSA will continue to require 50% of commercial truck drivers to undergo random drug testing and 10% to undergo testing for alcohol.
A summary of this survey may be found at the FMCSA website.
The interstate trucking industry is regulated by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), a branch of the United States Department of Transportation. Many trucking regulations are designed to protect the motoring public. FMCSA publishes its trucking regulations in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). These regulations are available on the web, including the following:
49 CFR 40: Drug and Alcohol Regulations. Describes in great detail the procedures which must be followed for mandatory driver alcohol and drug testing.
49 CFR 382: Controlled Substances and Alcohol Use and Testing.
49 CFR 383: Commercial Driver’s License Standards
49 CFR 387: Minimum Levels of Financial Responsibility for Motor Carriers. (Specifies the minimum levels of insurance motor carriers must have to cover damages caused by accidents.)
49 CFR 391: Qualifications of Drivers
49 CFR 392: Driving of Motor Vehicles
49 CFR 393: Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation
49 CFR 395: Hours of Service of Drivers. (Requires drivers to rest.)
49 CFR 396: Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance. (Requires trucking companies to maintain vehicles in a safe operating condition.)
49 CFR 397: Transportation of Hazardous Materials; Driving and Parking Rules
49 CFR 571: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Describes requirements for trucking equipment.
Failure of a truck driver or the trucking company to comply with these regulations may be an important consideration in establishing fault for a trucking crash. We will explore the details of many of these trucking regulations is future editions.
If you have questions about federal trucking regulations or a truck accident claim, please contact us through our website at www.ClarkPerdue.com.
Due to the complexities of the commercial trucking industry, it is not always easy to identify the parties who should be held accountable for a truck crash. Of course, the negligent truck driver is most often a responsible party. But the truck driver’s employer is also legally responsible for damages caused by its employee who is negligent while working. The following example illustrates why it can be difficult to identify a truck driver’s employer.
Consider the following situation: Mr. Bell drives a truck owned by his employer, Wyckoff Trucking. Wyckoff leases the truck (and Mr. Bell’s services as a driver) to a company called Rogers. Under the lease, Rogers is entitled to use the truck at any time for its business purposes, but Wyckoff is allowed to hire the truck out to other customers when Rogers does not need it. Such “trip lease” arrangements are common in the trucking industry. Wyckoff can make a profit only if it can trip lease the truck when the truck would otherwise be empty on the return trip after dropping off Rogers’ cargo.
After dropping off a load for Rogers, Bell enters into a trip lease with Marsh Company. On his way to pick up with load for Marsh, Bell causes a crash with another motorist.
If this sounds confusing, it is! However, these complex business relationships are common in the trucking industry. So the question is, which company is responsible for the crash as Bell’s employer — Wyckoff, Rogers, Marsh, or some combination of the three?
The Ohio Supreme Court partially answered that question in Wyckoff Trucking, Inc. v. Marsh Brothers Trucking Service, Inc. (1991), 58 Ohio St. 3d 261. Applying the federal regulations in effect at the time, the Court found that the company whose placard is displayed on the truck at the time of a crash will be considered to be the driver’s employer for purposes of legal responsibility for damages. Because its placard was displayed on the truck at the time of the crash, Rogers was held to be legally responsible even though Mr. Bell was not transporting Rogers’ cargo when the crash occurred.
Truck accident litigation is complex, in part, because the trucking industry is complex. A truck accident injury attorney must understand how the law assigns responsibility to the various companies that may be involved. If you have questions about truck accident litigation, please contact us through our website at www.ClarkPerdue.com.
A heavy truck at highway speeds can cause devastating injuries. Finding enough insurance to cover the damages can be a critical component for obtaining full compensation for injuries caused by a truck crash.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration regulations (49 CFR 387.9) require most commercial trucks which travel between states to carry a minimum of $750,000.00 of liability insurance to cover damages. For trucks carrying hazardous cargo, the minimum insurance is either $1 million or $5 million, depending upon the type and amount of hazardous material being transported.
For motorists with catastrophic injuries, the trucking company’s insurance policy may not be sufficient to cover all of the damages caused by a truck crash. In that event, it may be possible to find additional insurance in unexpected places.
For example, in a crash involving a tractor-trailer rig, there may be separate insurance policies – one covering the tractor and the other covering the trailer. The Ohio Supreme Court considered such a situation in Lynch v Yob. In that case, the truck driver caused a crash while driving a tractor rig owned by his employer, Bath Transport. The tractor was covered by $1 million of liability insurance.
At the time of the crash, the truck driver was pulling a trailer owned by another company, GLS. The trailer was covered under a policy purchased by GLS, but neither the truck driver nor his trucking company were considered “insureds” under that policy. In fact, the trailer policy excluded coverage for any “trucker” who was not an employee of GLS. Because the truck driver was not a GLS employee, GLS’s insurance company refused to cover the accident.
Nevertheless, the Ohio Supreme Court, applying federal trucking regulations, determined that GLS’s policy was required to cover the accident. The Court modified the coverage provided by the policy “to insure the availability of insurance for negligently injured members of the public.” As a result, the injured motorist was able to recover much needed additional compensation.
In making a truck accident claim, proving the truck driver’s fault and the damages caused in a truck crash may be only half the battle. The truck accident attorney must also have a deep understanding of the complex insurance relationships unique to the trucking industry and the expertise to fight for the insurance coverage to which the injured motorist is entitled.
If you have questions about truck crash litigation, please contact us through our website at www.ClarkPerdue.com.
|
