Understanding Liability in Commercial Vehicle Collisions
A crash involving a commercial truck can draw in far more parties than the two drivers. Each faces its own theory of responsibility, shaped by federal safety rules and by the law of the state where the case is heard.
When two passenger cars collide, responsibility usually stays between the two drivers and their insurers. A truck crash can reach further: to the company that dispatched the truck, the owner of the equipment, the broker that arranged the load, the shipper that loaded it, the maker of a failed part and the agency that maintains the road. Each is judged under its own theory, and state law decides much of the outcome.
This explainer describes how those theories generally work. It is not advice about any particular crash.
The elements of negligence
Most crash claims rest on negligence, which in nearly every state has four parts.
- Duty. The defendant owed a duty of reasonable care. Every driver owes one to others on the road, and companies owe duties tied to their own conduct, such as hiring drivers and maintaining equipment.
- Breach. The defendant fell short of that standard.
- Causation. The breach caused the harm, both in fact and as a matter of law. The second part, proximate cause, asks whether the harm was a foreseeable result.
- Damages. Someone suffered a legally recognized loss.
Federal safety rules often enter at the breach stage. States differ on whether violating one proves breach, creates a presumption of negligence or is evidence a jury may weigh. A violation does not prove causation: a driver over the hours-of-service limit may still have been struck by someone running a red light.
The driver
The truck driver is judged by ordinary standards of care, plus duties the federal rules impose on commercial drivers, such as the hours-of-service limits and inspection requirements. A driver can be personally liable, but in serious crashes claims commonly look to the company as well.
The motor carrier: responsibility for the driver
Under respondeat superior, a form of vicarious liability, an employer answers for an employee’s negligence within the scope of employment, even if the employer did nothing wrong itself. The disputes are whether the driver was an employee and whether the driver was on the job at the time. A driver hauling a dispatched load usually is; one running personal errands may not be, and states draw that line differently.
Much of the industry runs on owner-operators who lease their trucks and services to carriers, under contracts that often call the driver an independent contractor. Federal rules complicate that label. The safety regulations define an employee as an individual employed by an employer who directly affects commercial motor vehicle safety in the course of that employment, and the definition expressly includes a commercial driver, “including an independent contractor while in the course of operating a commercial motor vehicle”1. Federal leasing rules require the lease to give the carrier “exclusive possession, control, and use” of the equipment and to have the carrier “assume complete responsibility for the operation of the equipment” during the lease. The same rule says that requirement is not meant to decide whether the driver is an independent contractor or an employee2.
Courts have read these provisions differently. Some hold the carrier whose operating authority the truck runs under responsible to the public for the driver, whatever the contract says; others give the contract or state agency law more weight.
The motor carrier: its own negligence
A carrier can also be liable for its own conduct. Some states limit these direct claims once the carrier admits it is vicariously liable for the driver; others let both proceed.
Negligent hiring and retention. Under Part 391, a commercial driver must, among other requirements, be at least 21, physically qualified, licensed, not disqualified, and road-tested or holding an accepted equivalent3. Within 30 days of a driver’s start, the carrier must request the driver’s motor vehicle record covering the past three years from each licensing state and document an investigation of the driver’s safety performance history with regulated employers over the same period4. Those records, medical certificates and annual reviews go into a driver qualification file, generally kept for the length of employment plus three years5. The claim asks whether the carrier knew, or would have learned through reasonable care, that the driver was unfit, and kept the driver on the road anyway.
Negligent entrustment. This theory targets handing a vehicle to someone the owner knew or should have known was likely to operate it dangerously, through inexperience, a poor record or impairment. It can reach an equipment owner that is not the driver’s employer.
Negligent supervision. Carriers must require their drivers to follow the federal driver rules6, and may not schedule runs that can be completed only by exceeding speed limits7. These claims often ask whether a carrier monitored hours of service, acted on violations and complaints, or set schedules that pushed drivers past legal limits.
Negligent maintenance. Part 396 requires carriers to systematically inspect, repair and maintain their vehicles and to keep parts and accessories “in safe and proper operating condition at all times”8. Defects on a driver’s inspection report that are likely to affect safety must be repaired before the vehicle runs again, with the carrier certifying the repair or that none was needed9. See How Commercial Truck Maintenance Failures Lead to Crashes.
All four theories depend on records that carriers must keep only for set periods. Evidence After a Commercial Vehicle Crash lists those periods, and The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations: A Reader’s Map shows where each rule sits.
Brokers
A freight broker arranges, for compensation, the transportation of property by an authorized motor carrier10. Injured parties have sued brokers for negligently selecting unsafe carriers. Brokers answered that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) preempts those claims. The statute bars states from enforcing laws “related to a price, route, or service” of a motor carrier or broker with respect to transporting property, but says the bar “shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles”11. The federal circuits split over whether that safety exception covers negligent-selection claims12.
On May 14, 2026, the Supreme Court resolved the split. In Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, a unanimous Court held that a claim that one company negligently hired another to transport goods falls within the safety exception, because requiring a broker to use ordinary care in choosing a carrier concerns the trucks that will haul the goods12.
The ruling settles less than it might seem. The Court assumed, without deciding, that the claim would otherwise be preempted. A separate FAAAA provision on brokers’ intrastate services has no safety exception, a mismatch the Court acknowledged before holding that the text of the provision before it controls1211. Whether a broker was negligent, what checks a reasonable broker must make and whether the choice caused the crash remain questions of state law and fact. A concurring opinion stressed that brokers who act reasonably and hire reputable carriers should be able to defend these suits, and that proximate cause limits their exposure12.
Shippers and loaders
A shipper tenders property to a carrier for transport1. Drivers and carriers have their own federal duty to see that cargo is properly distributed and secured, and to recheck it on the road13, and federal lease rules require the lease to say who is responsible for loading2. Many courts place the duty to secure a load on the carrier, but a shipper that loaded the trailer may answer for a defect the driver could not have found through reasonable inspection. Hazardous materials shippers carry additional federal duties.
Manufacturers and parts suppliers
When a brake component, tire, coupling or steering part fails, the maker of the truck, trailer or part may face a product liability claim for a design defect, manufacturing defect or failure to warn. States differ on strict liability and defenses. Separating a defective part from a badly maintained one is often the central fight, and it depends on preserved physical evidence.
Public road agencies
Road design, a missing sign, a malfunctioning signal or an unrepaired hazard can contribute to a crash. Governments are generally immune from suit except as they consent, and state tort claims acts waive that immunity only in part.
Texas shows the common features. Its Tort Claims Act requires notice of a claim within six months of the incident, and city charters may set shorter periods. It caps damages for bodily injury or death at $250,000 per person and $500,000 per occurrence for the state and for cities, and at $100,000 and $300,000 for other units of local government14. It excludes claims based on discretionary decisions, and claims over a missing or malfunctioning sign or signal unless the agency failed to correct it within a reasonable time after notice14. Other states set different caps, deadlines and exceptions.
How states divide fault
When more than one party is at fault, including the injured person, state law decides how responsibility is shared.
Pure comparative negligence. Recovery is reduced by the plaintiff’s share of fault, whatever its size. A plaintiff found 70 percent at fault can still recover 30 percent of the damages.
Modified comparative negligence. Recovery is reduced by the plaintiff’s share but barred entirely once that share reaches a threshold15. Under a 50 percent bar, a plaintiff who is as much at fault as the defendant recovers nothing. Under a 51 percent bar, recovery ends only when the plaintiff’s share exceeds 50 percent. Texas uses the second version: a claimant more than 50 percent responsible recovers nothing, and otherwise damages are reduced by the claimant’s percentage16. Texas also limits each defendant to its own share of the damages unless that defendant is more than 50 percent responsible or a narrow exception applies16.
Pure contributory negligence. Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia and the District of Columbia keep the older rule: a plaintiff whose own negligence contributed to the harm, even slightly, is generally barred from recovering1517. Doctrines such as last clear chance can soften it, and the District of Columbia has carved out an exception for pedestrians, bicyclists and other nonmotorized road users15.
When the crash, the carrier and the court sit in different states, which state’s law applies is its own question, and it can decide the case.
Insurance as the practical backstop
Liability decides who should pay. Insurance often decides what can be collected. Interstate for-hire carriers of nonhazardous property in vehicles of 10,001 pounds or more must carry at least $750,000 in public liability coverage, and certain hazardous cargo requires $1,000,000 or $5,000,00018. Those levels have not been raised since 198518. The concurring opinion in Montgomery observed that the statute mandates minimum insurance coverage for trucking companies but not for brokers12. The figures, and the debate over raising them, are covered in Federal Minimum Insurance for Motor Carriers.
