{"id":2267,"date":"2020-03-06T18:33:54","date_gmt":"2020-03-06T18:33:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/quicktransportsolutions.com\/blog\/?p=2267"},"modified":"2020-03-06T18:33:56","modified_gmt":"2020-03-06T18:33:56","slug":"truck-driver-risk-exposure-and-the-importance-of-monitoring","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/quicktransportsolutions.com\/blog\/truck-driver-risk-exposure-and-the-importance-of-monitoring\/","title":{"rendered":"Truck Driver Risk Exposure and the Importance of Monitoring"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

According to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, highway accidents accounted for 37,461 deaths in the U.S. in 2016. Moreover, a recent study by Motus, a vehicle management and reimbursement platform, found that 40% of all motor vehicle accidents are work-related and cost employers a staggering $56.7 billion in 2017, taking into account medical expenses, property damage, increased insurance premiums, and lost productivity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While liability insurance is an important way for employers to address that risk, it\u2019s by no means a panacea. Trucking companies<\/a> can and should be doing more to lessen the likelihood of accidents in the first place. And given that the vast majority (94%, according to NHTSA\u2019s study) stem from driver-related actions or inactions as opposed to equipment malfunctions, one of the most important ways of doing so is to ensure that the individuals who drive in connection with their employment (including those who do so for a living) are safe drivers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trucking companies<\/a> that carefully and continuously monitor their drivers are not only better positioned in their defense of catastrophic accidents but are also much less likely to find themselves in that position to begin with. Additionally, these companies often have a much lower risk profile than their peers and can leverage that fact in their negotiations with their insurance providers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Xerox Example<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2009, Eduardo Delgado, an employee of Xerox, was driving\na company vehicle when he struck and killed 63-year-old Elvira Gomez in\nCalifornia as she crossed the street on her way home from church. Delgado was\ndriving under the influence of alcohol at the time and had a history of at\nleast two prior DUIs. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mrs. Gomez\u2019s adult children and husband filed a wrongful\ndeath lawsuit against Xerox, arguing among other things that Xerox was\nnegligent in allowing Delgado to drive a vehicle without first checking his\nMotor Vehicle Report (\u201cMVR\u201d)\u2014a fact admitted by Xerox\u2014which would have revealed\nhis prior DUIs. In fact, had Xerox checked Delgado\u2019s driving record, it would\nhave discovered that his license was actually suspended due to his DUIs. After\na lengthy trial, the case ultimately settled, with Xerox agreeing to pay Ms.\nGomez\u2019s family $5 million for their loss. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unfortunately, the Xerox case is not an outlier; it is one\nof many in which companies have been forced to pay millions of dollars in\ndamages due to accidents caused by the employees or contractors they put behind\nthe wheel. The legal theories upon which these companies are held liable vary\nfrom case to case and from state to state, but they share some common themes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a general rule, employers are vicariously liable for any\nmotor vehicle accidents caused by their employees under the doctrine of\nrespondeat superior, which imputes the conduct of the employee to his\/her\nemployer under agency principles. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of course, there could be exceptions to the rule, including,\nfor example, if the employee is operating the vehicle outside the scope of\nhis\/her employment when the accident occurs. But generally speaking,\nemployers\u2014and their insurers\u2014will be held responsible for any damages stemming\nfrom their employees\u2019 accidents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Who is Liable?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the same time, an employer could also be directly liable\nto the injured party(ies) if the employer\u2019s own independent negligence was the\nproximate cause of the injuries. This liability is distinct from vicarious\nliability in the sense that the latter is premised on the employer\u2019s master\/\nservant relationship with its employee, whereas the former is premised on the\nemployer\u2019s own actions or inactions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This type of \u201cdirect\u201d liability is at the heart of the matter, and it\u2019s precisely the issue that Xerox faced in its lawsuit. It is also the type of liability that can open the door to punitive damages (i.e., those meant to punish the company for its egregious conduct) on top of compensatory damages already awarded to the injured party. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The most common direct-liability theories in highway-accident cases are negligent hiring, negligent selection, and negligent entrustment. Under these theories, the injured party alleges that the company was negligent in allowing its employee\/subcontractor to operate a motor vehicle, and, but for that decision, the accident would never have occurred.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trucking companies that engage independent contractors to operate motor vehicles on their behalf rather than employees may not be vicariously liable for the contractor\u2019s operation of those vehicles, but this depends on a number of factors, including, for example, whether the state law at issue considers the operation of a motor vehicle to be an \u201cinherently dangerous\u201d activity and whether companies have \u201cnon-delegable duties\u201d with respect to their operation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Additionally, pursuant to federal and state leasing\nregulations, motor carriers who contract with independent-contractor\nowner-operators are generally vicariously liable for any accidents caused by\nthose owner-operators as a matter of law. And regardless of whether companies\nutilize employees or independent contractors to operate vehicle, the companies\ncould still be directly liable for damages stemming from the companies\u2019 own\nnegligence. Some state laws, but certainly not all, provide that an employer\nwho is vicariously liable for its employee\u2019s conduct cannot be separately\nliable to the injured plaintiff under a theory of direct liability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In addition to damages stemming from highway accidents,\ncompanies that hire or engage unsafe or unqualified drivers to operate\n\u201ccommercial motor vehicles\u201d also face regulatory fines and other enforcement\naction. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation (FMCSA) regulates the\noperation of \u201ccommercial motor vehicles\u201d in interstate commerce, defined to\ninclude self-propelled or towed vehicles used on a highway to transport\npassengers or property when the vehicle: <\/p>\n\n\n\n