The Law Office of Kevin J. Williams handles catastrophic injury and wrongful death cases in North Carolina arising from crashes involving tractor trailers and other commercial motor vehicles. Holding the responsible parties to account is not always clear-cut. Often, the motor carrier responsible for the negligent truck driver hides behind the independent contractor defense. They create layers of liability between themselves and the negligent driver. The trucking company that profits most from transporting a load shifts the risks of harm to you by trying to avoid liability and financial responsibility for your terrible losses.
Here is part 1 of a brief I submitted to a North Carolina court several years ago in opposition to a motor carrier’s motion for summary judgment. This part provides a historical explanation of regulations governing independent contractors, including the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR). The basis for the motion was that the lease agreement stated that the driver was an independent contractor and the motor carrier was not liable for the driver’s negligent acts or omissions. We won the motion and the case settled soon thereafter. A summary of the case is described here: https://kevinjwilliamslaw.com/case-result/5-5-million-settlement-2/. Part 2 of the brief will follow in a subsequent blog post and will further show how we successfully defeated the independent contractor defense under federal and North Carolina law. I have not updated the research for this article, but the principles remain the same.
A. Purpose And History Of Statutory Employment Pursuant To Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations have essentially done away with the traditional common-law doctrine of master-servant liability. The Regulations have done this by specifically providing that an interstate carrier is vicariously liable for the negligence of their independent contractor, even though the independent contractor is not literally an employee of the carrier. As discussed more thoroughly below, under the FMCSR and applicable case law, the independent contractor is considered the “statutory employee” of the carrier, and that statutory employment has become the basis for holding the carrier vicariously liable. If this were not the rule, injured people would encounter tremendous hurdles and mazes in trying to determine who is responsible for compensating the victims of truck accidents. As stated in Rediehs Express, Inc. v. Maple:
Absent such a policy [of holding the carrier-lessee liable for the negligence of its leased independent contractor], when innocent people are hurt or killed, there will be, as here, a round robin of finger pointing by carriers, lessors, owners and drivers, cargo owners and insurers, raising issues of independent contractor, frolic, and detour, whose cargo was being carried, what instructions the driver had, agency and the like in their attempt to evade responsibility for the carnage wrecked upon innocent motorists. The plaintiff encounters much difficulty in fixing responsibility, for only the carrier and his lessor really know their arrangements. A plaintiff should not be required to bear this burden nor should he be required to settle for a financially irresponsible defendant fathered by the carrier….In short, the policy enunciated in the ICC regulations and the cases make the carrier totally responsible to the injured plaintiff as a matter for law for the negligence of the lessor and its drivers of a leased vehicle. The carrier must, at his peril, exert care in his leasing arrangements and avoid leasing from “gypsies” or fly-by-night, irresponsible truckers. The regulations and cases make the carrier police its lessors as it is policed by the ICC.
Rediehs Express, Inc. v. Maple, 491 N.E.2d 1006, 1012 (Ind. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 932, 107 S. Ct. 1571, 94 L. Ed. 2d 762 (1986).
It is important to note that the regulations do not limit the activities for which a carrier-lessee may be held vicariously liable to the actual driving of the truck. The regulations state that the carrier shall assume complete responsibility for the entire operation of the truck. 49 C.F.R. §376.12(c)(1997). This means that the carrier is responsible for such things as the maintenance and inspection of the truck, as well as for driver oversight, qualifications, and training.
In Proctor v. Colonial Refrigerated Transportation, Inc., 494 F.2d 89, 90 (4th Cir. 1974), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals considered whether a carrier is liable for the negligent acts of an independent contractor when the contractor is operating within the business of the carrier. The court stated the I.C.C. “regulations were promulgated by the Commission to correct widespread abuses incident to the use of leased equipment by the carriers.” Proctor, 494 F.2d at 91-92. Proctor concluded that “[t]he statute and regulatory pattern [of the I.C.C. regulations] clearly eliminates the independent contractor concept from . . . lease arrangements and casts upon [the carrier] full responsibility for the negligence of [the driver] of the leased equipment.” Id. at 92.
North Carolina courts have examined this issue and have adopted the rebuttable presumption of agency view (minority view) as opposed to the irrebuttable presumption of agency view (majority view).
B. Independent Contractors Are Statutory Employees Pursuant To The Plain Language Of 49 C.F.R. § 390.5
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations make clear at the outset that independent contractors are treated just like employees in the trucking industry. The Definitions section in Title 49, Section 390.5 of the Code of Federal Regulations defines “employee” as:
any individual, other than an employer, who is employed by an employer and who in the course of his or her employment directly affects commercial motor vehicle safety. Such term includes a driver of a commercial motor vehicle (including an independent contractor while in the course of operating a commercial motor vehicle) . . .
49 C.F.R. § 390.5 (1988). The Regulatory Guidance to 49 C.F.R. § 390.5, at Question 17, states:
The term “employee,” as defined in § 390.5, specifically includes an independent contractor employed by a motor carrier. The existence of operating authority has no bearing on the issue. The motor carrier is, therefore, responsible for compliance with the FMCSRs by its driver employees, including those who are owner-operators.
62 Fed. Reg. 16, 407 (April 4, 1997).
Moreover, “employer” is defined as, “any person engaged in business affecting interstate commerce who owns or leases a commercial motor vehicle in connection with that business . . . .” 49 C.F.R. § 390.5 (1988). Thus, the plain language of the Definitions section of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations makes it clear that independent contractors are considered to be (statutory) employees for the purposes of such Regulations. Therefore, even if a motor carrier’s assertion that an owner-operator was an independent contractor are true, then the owner-operator would still be considered a statutory employee whose negligence is imputed to the motor carrier pursuant to the theory of respondeat superior.
Part 2 of my argument against the independent contractor defense concerns specific lease requirements under the FMSCA and shall be published soon in a subsequent blog post.
If you have been seriously injured or lost a loved one due to a large truck crash, contact the Law Office of Kevin J. Williams for a free consultation. If you are a lawyer looking to associate counsel, the Law Office of Kevin J. Williams can help you find all sources of coverage available and hold all responsible parties to account.
