Call Us Toll-Free: 1.877.767.3108

Posted in Truck Accident Litigation Blog

Trucking Companies May Be Liable For Punitive Damages

June 15th, 2007 by Dawn Mefford

Under a negligence theory, punitive damages may be awarded when the evidence demonstrates that the defendant knew, or had information from which he, in the exercise of ordinary care, should have known, that the alleged negligent conduct created a high degree of probability of injury and thereby showed complete indifference or conscious disregard for the safety of others.  Coon v. American Compressed Steel, Inc., 207 S.W.3d 629, 637 (Mo. App. Ct. W.D. 2006) (citing M.A.I. 10.07; Hoover’s Dairy, Inc. v. Mid-Am. Dairymen, 700 S.W.2d 426,436 (Mo. banc 1985)).

To support a claim for punitive damages, the evidence must be “clear and convincing.”  Id. (citing Lopez v. Three Rivers Elec. Co-op., Inc., 26 S.W.3d 151, 160 (Mo. banc 2000). “The clear and convincing standard requires evidence which instantly tilts the scales in the affirmative when weighed against evidence in opposition; evidence which clearly convinces the fact finder of the truth of the proposition to be proved.”  Id. (citing Peters v. Gen. Motors Corp., 200 S.W.3d 1, 25 (Mo. App. 2006); Lewis v. FAG Bearings Corp., 5 S.W.3d 579, 582-83 (Mo. App. 1999)).  

Factors that typically weigh against submission of punitive damages include: “prior similar occurrences known to the defendant have been infrequent; the injurious event was unlikely to have occurred absent negligence on the part of someone other than the defendant; and, the defendant did not knowingly violate a statute, regulation, or clear industry standard designed to prevent the type of injury that occurred.”  Id. (citing Lopez, 26 S.W.3d at 160)(emphasis added). 

In a trucking accident case, where a defendant trucking company knowingly violates safety regulations, or is aware of safety regulations but allows its drivers to ignore those regulations, punitive damages are permissible because such conduct evidences a “complete indifference or conscious disregard for the safety of others.” Id.  Thus, the violation of a provision of the FMCSR by a carrier or driver may form the basis for a punitive damages claim. Id.  

How Can I Use the FMSCR to Support My Punitive Damages Claim?

Punitive damages in trucking cases are often based on the behavior of the defendant trucking company itself rather than solely on the driver’s acts.  Common theories of liability against trucking companies include negligent entrustment, hiring, supervision, retention and maintenance.  In building a punitive damages claim against the defendant trucking company, attorneys representing the injured party should seek to establish that the defendant trucking company ignored safety standards imposed by the FMCSR or that the company knew or should have known the standards were not being observed by the driver.  In building a claim for punitive damages, the following questions are of the type that need to be answered during the discovery process:

• Was the defendant driver generally qualified to operate the commercial motor vehicle as required by §391.11?
• Was the defendant driver physically qualified to operate the commercial motor vehicle as required by §391.41?
• Did the defendant trucking company adequately investigate the driving record, safety performance history and employment record of the defendant driver prior to hire and continue to annually review the driver’s driving record and record of violations as required by §§391.21, 391.23, 391.25, 391.27?
• Were drugs or alcohol a factor in the accident and were the appropriate pre-employment, post-accident and random alcohol and drug tests performed as required by Part 382?  
• Did the driver’s driving schedule permit him to conform to speed limits as required by 392.6?
• How was the driver paid for his services (i.e., would the method of payment encourage unsafe driving)?
• If hazardous driving conditions existed at the time of the accident, did the driver use “extreme caution” as required by §392.14?
• Did the driver commit any “prohibited practices” as outlined in §§392.60-392.71?
• Was the truck properly equipped and its cargo secured pursuant to Part 393?
• Were hours of service standards violated?
• Was the truck properly inspected, repaired and maintained pursuant to Part 396?

Ultimately, the defendant trucking company’s failure to adhere to the  requirements and standards imposed by the FMCSR may result in the imposition of punitive damages if that failure plays a causal role in a trucking accident. 

Share This