Source: https://www.360advocacy.com/how-to-get-more-from-your-trucking-cases/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 03:45:57+00:00

Document:
More and more, the decreasing value of trucking industry coverage has effectively eliminated the prospect of fair compensation from a single insurance policy. (note 1) As a result, it has become incumbent upon counsel to understand how to build a case against all culpable entities. Culpable defendants commonly assert that they were operating as freight-forwarders or “brokers” at the time of the occurrence to avoid liability. This insulation strategy is nothing new. See e.g. Johnke v. Espinal-Quiroz, 2017 WL 3620745, at *9 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 23, 2017). note 2 In many ways, the “Broker Defense” is the next step in the evolution of the interstate motor carrier’s “independent contractor” defense. Expert testimony can be critical in persuading a jury to impose vicarious liability in what may, at first blush, appear to be a murky business relationship.
The regulations that govern the relationships between employers, employees, and drivers are numerous and sometimes complicated. To assist the jury’s understanding, liability experts are often called to testify regarding the regulations. Whether an expert’s testimony concerning the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations is admissible is a question with different answers depending on the jurisdiction. However, the “crushing weight of authority” from courts nationwide has overwhelmingly held that motor carriers are statutorily liable as a matter of law under the FMCSRs for the negligence of their leased drivers, regardless of the nature and scope of the negligent conduct, and that an expert’s conclusions may be assistive to the trier of fact. note 3 Morris v. J.T. Materials, Inc., 78 S.W.3d 28, 51-52 (Tex. App. 2002).
A well-prepared and knowledgeable expert can be the difference between a collectible verdict against a principal-broker and an uncollectible verdict against a small trucking company with statutory minimum coverage. Savvy attorneys will familiarize themselves with the case law to ensure that they can present testimony consistent with custom and practice in the trucking industry without venturing into statutory interpretation, which may invade the province of the judge and jury.
In Sperl v. CH Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 408 Ill.App.3d 1051 (3rd Dist. 2011), the plaintiff’s expert testified that, based on his experience in the industry, the logistics company “fell outside that definition and into the definition of a motor carrier” because it heaped numerous obligations on the driver, making the owner-operator driver an agent of the logistics company for vicarious liability purposes. An appellate court reached a similar result in McHale v. W.D. Trucking, Inc., 2015 IL App (1st) 132625, affirming that a trucking industry expert was properly permitted to testify that a driver was an “employee” of the “broker” at the time of the incident as those terms are defined under § 390.5 of the Regulations.
Courts in other jurisdictions have considered and approved similar testimony. In Rabon v. Hopkins, 208 N.C. App. 351 (2010), an appellate court found that an expert could testify concerning what types of brake systems were required under the FMCSRs. The 10th Circuit has permitted expert testimony that the defendant truck driver violated FMCSRs and industry standards when he was impaired by methamphetamines. Frederick v. Swift Transp. Co., 616 F.3d 1074 (10th Cir. 2010).
Wherever you practice, one useful tool to ensure your client’s claim is fairly considered by a jury is a well-prepared and knowledgeable expert. Your understanding of the interplay between the regulations and the tortfeasor’s conduct will help safeguard your client’s rights.
3. Motor Carrier Liability for Injuries Caused by Negligent “Independent Contractors,” Steven M. Friedman; see also Harvey v. F-B Truck Line Company, 115 Idaho 411 (1987).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 390
 v. 
 v. 
 v.