While it may seem like common sense that a company shouldn’t be held responsible for truck drivers who aren’t their employees, it also seems like common sense that an individual driving a truck with a giant company logo on the side must be an employee of that company. In reality, however, neither of these two assumptions are correct. In most cases, companies lease their logos to the truck drivers and hire the drivers as independent contractors. That means the driver isn’t technically an employee and the truck isn’t actually owned by the company. The question is: should a company be allowed to avoid responsibility for a driver who causes a devastating accident while delivering their goods in a truck with their logo on it?
Prior to 1956, victims involved in trucking accidents were oftentimes unable to hold trucking companies responsible for their negligent drivers. Trucking companies had previously taken advantage of an exception to the law by which they avoided any liability for truck drivers they hired as “independent contractors.” Congress sought to put an end to the trucking industry’s evasive practices through an amendment to the Interstate Common Carrier Act in 1956.
Employers are normally held accountable for the actions of their employees, particularly when a member of the public is injured, under a legal theory known as “vicarious liability.” To avoid liability for the accidents caused by their drivers, trucking companies began hiring drivers as “independent contractors” rather than as their direct employees and also began leasing as opposed to owning the trucks being driven for them. As a result, their drivers were no longer considered an employee and trucking companies became judgment-proof because a crucial requirement of the vicarious liability theory is that the individual must be an employee of the company being sued.
In order to protect the public from the kind of catastrophic injuries that often occur when very large commercial trucks collide with the average citizen’s sedan or SUV, Congress amended the Interstate Common Carrier Act in 1956 to include responsibility and control regulations that forced trucking companies to be responsible for independent contractor truck drivers and the leased equipment they operated. The amendment also granted regulatory authority to the Interstate Commerce Commission (now known as the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration) to issue and enforce regulations on the trucking industry. The rules issued as a result of Congress’s amendment are known as the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (“FMCSR”).
Pursuant to FMCSR, interstate motor carriers are obligated to have a certain amount of control over leased equipment being operated for the company’s benefit. That required control creates what is known as a “statutory employee” relationship between the driver and trucking company. The effect is that interstate motor carriers (trucking companies) can be held liable for negligent drivers regardless of whether they are considered independent contractors. Therefore, not only is it possible for a company to be responsible for a driver it doesn’t employ, a company should be held accountable for the devastation that can occur at the hands of a driver they selected to get behind the wheel of a 10,000 ton vehicle carrying their goods.
Every accident is different and understanding how the complex laws regarding commercial motor vehicles apply to each situation can be very tricky. It’s important you get the appropriate legal advice on a case-by-case basis.
Written by:
Kelly Bennett
Approved by Francisco Guerra IV
Watts Guerra LLP
4 Dominion Drive, Bldg 3, Suite 100
San Antonio, Texas 78257
Phone (210) 447-0500
© Watts Guerra LLP 2015
