Truck Accident Victims Often Forget the Shipper

a commercial truck loading dock

Truck accidents can be disastrous, which is why commercial truck owners are required to carry a minimum of $750,000.00 in single-limit coverage. This typically covers the trucking business owner, drivers, and any trucks that are insured under the policy. The policy amounts are so high because litigation costs a great deal in the U.S. (A recent study found that the annual cost of civil lawsuits to the U.S. economy was $233 billion).

Considering the extent of damage that a commercial truck can cause, $750,000.00 may not be enough to cover one plaintiff’s injuries, so it’s important to examine all parties who may be at fault. An often missed defendant is that of the shipper of the load. Who is the shipper? The shipper is the company that hires the commercial trucking company to haul goods from location A to location B. Sometimes the shipping company’s employees even load the cargo, which can mean that the driver of the truck isn’t responsible for shifting or poorly secured contents.

A Shipper May be Guilty of Negligent Selection

shippers loading truck with forkliftAnother common accusation against a shipper is “negligent selection”. A shipper is responsible for choosing a competent and careful contractor to do business with, and may be liable for damages in a personal injury case if it can be proven that they did not take enough care.

In these cases, the courts routinely look at the sophistication of the shipper. The more sophisticated a shipper, based on frequency and size of shipments, the more likely the courts are going to place a higher duty on the shipper for proper selection of a competent carrier to haul goods. Once it has been established that a shipper negligently selected the carrier and that the carrier was incompetent, the assessment shifts to whether or not the shipper knew this.

A Shipper’s Truck Accident Defense

The most common defense to negligent selection is that the carrier’s duty to investigate did not extend past checking for a satisfactory rating with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Association. This is strong because if the carrier has a “satisfactory” rating, they are somewhat presumed to be an appropriate selection. The counter argument is that an employer must investigate further to make sure that the carrier is not manipulating business practices to avoid unsatisfactory ratings, however, this is a weak argument because it would require a never-ending investigation.

Did the Shipper Retain Control of the Commercial Truck?

Another theory used against a shipper is called “retained control”. This argument states that, at the time of the truck crash, the driver was acting as an agent for the shipper, meaning that thecorn being loaded into commercial truck shipper–not the carrier–retained control of the load. Some of the factors that determine whether the shipper maintained control are:

  • whether the driver contracted directly with the shipper (or the carrier),
  • whether the driver was paid directly by the shipper,
  • whether the shipper created deadlines and
  • whether the driver had to regularly check in with the shipper.

When the answers are “yes”, the logical assumption is that the shipper (instead of the carrier) had retained control of the driver.

Truck Accident Laws Cross State Lines

This is a continually evolving body of law that extends from state to state and even into the federal courts (due to the nature of commercial truck transporting across state lines). It is important to look at all potential defendants when one is assessing liability in a commercial truck accident, particularly when the injuries involve medical bills that exceed the policy limits or even wrongful death claims. It is during those times that it is important to have a skilled attorney who understands how to address shipper liability.

Recent Blog Posts

  • commercial trucks on highway

    Vicarious Liability Torts in Commercial Truck Accidents

    If a negligent driver causes a commercial truck accident, the trucking company can be burdened with vicarious liability torts. The company can be held liable for the driver’s negligence under the legal tenet known as respondeat superior, a Latin phrase that translates as “let the superior make the response.” This concept transfers the truck driver’s […]

    Read More
  • california fire possibly caused by utility company under strict liability

    3 Fascinating Strict Liability Tort Cases in Sacramento

    Tort liability in personal injury cases is most often based on acts of negligence, but there are exceptions. Sometimes the responsible party is held to the strict liability tort standard, meaning that a finding of negligence or malicious intent is not required. The most common types of strict liability tort cases are based on: Product […]

    Read More
  • student injured at school - parents suing for negligence

    Suing a School for Negligence: What You Need to Know

    A negligence-based lawsuit against a school can have unique complications, depending on the type of institution it is. Overall, teachers, school administrators, and other staff have a “duty of care,” meaning they must take reasonable steps to avoid and prevent circumstances likely to cause personal injury to a student. Some reasons you might want to […]

    Read More
  • Sacramento Office
  • 333 University Avenue, Suite 200
  • Sacramento, CA
  • (916) 756-0772
  • Roseville Office
  • 1544 Eureka Road, Suite 120
  • Roseville, CA
  • (916) 788-1960
  • Oakland Office
  • 1300 Clay St, Suite 600
  • Oakland, CA
  • (510) 962-4610

© 2019 Frank Penney Injury Lawyers, Serving the Areas of Sacramento, Roseville, Fairfield, Modesto, Stockton & Oakland California