Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations set minimum national safety standards for trucking

Posted on August 2, 2009 by Ken Shigley

The framers of the U. S. Constitution recognized in 1787 that no individual state could adequate deal with regulation of interstate commerce, so that was made one of the core functions of the federal government along with national defense and a few others.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution provides that any state law that conflicts with a federal law is "without effect."

Federal law displaces state law where (1) Congress expressly preempts state law; (2) congressional intent to preempt is inferred from the existence of a pervasive regulatory scheme; or (3) state law conflicts with federal law or interferes with the achievement of federal objectives.

The Supremacy Clause invalidates state laws that "interfere with or are contrary to" federal law. “Federal regulations have no less pre-emptive effect than federal statutes.”

In passing the Motor Carrier Act, Congress expressed its clear intent to establish a floor rather than a ceiling – minimum safety standards, 49 U.S.C. § 31136, and minimum financial responsibility requirements, 49 U.S.C. § 31139. The express purpose of the Federal Regulations is to protect the traveling public by imposing financial responsibility on motor carriers.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations implement the act, providing in 59 C.F.R. § 392.2 that: "[e]very commercial motor vehicle must be operated in accordance with the laws, ordinances, and regulations of the jurisdiction in which it is being operated. However, if a regulation of the Federal Highway Administration imposes a higher standard of care than that law, ordinance or regulation, theFederal Highway Administration regulation must be complied with.

In addition, 49 C.F.R. 392.14 provides, “if a regulation of a Federal Highway Administration imposes a higher standard of care than that law, ordinance, or regulation, the Federal Highway Administration must be complied with.” Thus, the Regulations are intended to preempt state law in tort actions in which a member of the public is injured by the negligence of a motor carrier’s employee while operating an interstate carrier vehicle.

 

 

For criteria useful in selecting an attorney, see The Smart Consumer’s Guide to Hiring a Great Lawyer.

Ken Shigley is a civil justice attorney in Atlanta, Georgia whose practice focuses on representing people who are catastrophically injured, and families of those killed, when companies violate rules designed for protection of public safety. He has been listed as a "Super Lawyer" (Atlanta Magazine), among the "Legal Elite" (Georgia Trend Magazine), and in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers (Martindale).  He is a Certified Civil Trial Advocate of the National Board of Trial Advocacy. Mr. Shigley has extensive experience representing parties in trucking and bus accidents, products liability, catastrophic personal injury, wrongful death, brain injury, spinal cord injury and burn injury cases.  Currently he is a national board member of the Interstate Trucking Litigation Group and Treasurer of the 40,000 member State Bar of Georgia.

  • James Bedard

    An uninsured vehicle runs a stop sign and
    causes a “motor carrier” hauling haz/mat to crash. they do not collide. Drivers injuries exceed work/comp. Can he fall back on liability coverage of the “motor carrier”? Under FMCSA definition of “motor carrier for hire” and “bodily injury”.

  • Michelle Novak

    My name is Michelle Novak and I am the sister of a woman whose son was just killed on October 24 in Henderson County, NC on I-26 in the crash that took the lives of 5 people.
    This crash was the responsibility of Roumen Velkov, who drove his tractor trailer into a line of stopped vehicles, waiting for a previous accident to be cleared. Mr. Velkov did not brake his vehicle and the investigators have charged him with 5 counts of involuntary manslaughter since his speedometer was stuck at 70 mph, the likely speed at impact. My nephew, Chuck Novak, 22, and his girlfriend, Teri Seaver,23 were in the first car that took the brunt of the impact and were killed instantly.
    My sister, Jackie, has since found out that the interstate minimum insurance law applies here. We were under the impression that it was what it said it was, a minimum and not a maximum. We were sure that if it affected this case, that she could sue for more, based on the egregrious nature of the crime, the fact that Velkov’s books were found to have been forged, along with a forged medical certificate, and proof that he was taking blood pressure medication just prior to the crash, and he was over the speed limit by at least 10 mph, along with the fact of his not applying any braking action, etc…
    But now it seems that, according to the order which came with the one million dollars deposited into the Superior Court in Henderson County last week, that she and the other 14 claimants are barred, simply by the insurance company’s act of depositing the monies and filing the order, from any further legal action against them in any court, federal or state, ever. In addition, the filing affirms that Velkov and the company which he worked for,
    Globe Trucking, the company owned by his wife, Gergana Lazova, are both legally bankrupt, and that the claimants can expect no future satisfaction for any future judgments.
    First, we wondered if you had any information as to what we might do. She has engaged an personal injury attorney, who seems to think that there aren’t many avenues we may pursue, even in this case where several parties have negligent acts which might be investigated, whether they meet the bar of proximate cause is doubtful, indeed, save the party which caused the initial accident which caused the line of cars to form on the highway in the first place, an accident that took, for some reason, more than two hours to clear, and left those cars more than vulnerable.
    There are government agencies, one charged with the oversight of Velkov and his truck, which freely admitted that there should have been “red flags” that should have kept Velkov off the road. They did not pull him off the road, despite his numerous, virtually habitual violations caught at each of his previous inspections, many during that previous 12 months.
    And there are others, not so convincing.
    But we would like to know, since I am doing reading on changing this minimum insurance law, if there is any way it can be done through the courts, using a case like this? Or must it be done through the legislature only, by petition and through contact with representatives? Because my sister would like to find an attorney in North Carolina who would be willing to take this case for just that purpose, if it has any merit for that purpose, in fact.
    We know there is no way she or the 14 other claimants are going to receive any reasonable compensation for the loss of their loved ones/or injuries sustained in this needless crash. But Jackie is committed now to changing this law, not just upgrading the monies to today’s standards, but to actually changing the law to re-expose the insurance industry to either some kind of punitive damages, depending on whether they knowingly insure a dangerous driver, or at least extracting higher payouts for those who have no other access to satisfaction from small interstate trucking firms. We think that wronged parties should have their day in court, contending openly against the insurance companies, and that by doing so the trucking industry would be forced to clean up its act and start driving and operating in a safer manner. This kind of carnage has got to stop.
    Thank you for reading this and for any reply you may have.
    If you can direct me to any group you know of or any lawyers in North Carolina who are fighting this law, I would be grateful for any help you can give me.
    Thank you,
    Michelle Novak