Get a Free Case Review -  (803) 471-4188
Free Consultation:
(803) 451-4000
Close

Suing For Injury When a Trucking Company Didn’t Maintain its Fleet in SC

Trucking companies can be held responsible when their drivers make mistakes on the road, but you can also hold them liable for their own mistakes.  One common issue that truck accident victims try to use is problems with the trucks themselves.

Vehicle owners are responsible for maintaining their vehicles and keeping them in working order.  Trucking companies have even stronger regulatory requirements that define what equipment the trucks have, maintenance schedules, and other requirements.  If they fail to keep their trucks in proper order and that causes a crash, the trucking company can be directly liable.

For a free review of your truck accident case, call Burriss Ridgeway Injury Lawyers’ Columbia, SC truck accident lawyers at (803) 451-4000 today.

Trucking Maintenance Requirements in South Carolina

Truck accident cases are typically based on a claim that the driver and/or the trucking company did something wrong to cause the crash.  If crashes are caused by out-of-date maintenance or inspection, that can be grounds for your lawsuit against the trucking company that injured you.

Trucking Regulations

Like any car, trucks need to be inspected and kept in proper working order, or else a driver/owner could be held responsible for a crash.  However, there are more regulations that define what is “street legal” for an 18-wheeler.

Legal Citation

Part 396 of the Code of Federal Regulations lays out “Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance” requirements for commercial trucks.  These rules apply across the country, so even trucks that started their journey outside of South Carolina are governed by these rules.

Types of Rules

Some rules are general, such as requiring the truck and its parts to be in “proper operating condition at all times” or bars against “unsafe operation.”  Others deal with more specific equipment and inspection requirements, like inspection reports, tire requirements, brake requirements, etc.

How Regulatory Violations Play into Truck Accident Claims in South Carolina

For a truck accident claim to succeed, you usually need to make out a claim for “negligence.”  This consists of four elements:

  • Duty – The defendant owed the victim a legal duty.
  • Breach – The defendant breached that duty.
  • Causation – That breach of duty caused the crash.
  • Damages – The victim suffered damages and injuries in the accident.

Trucking regulations are important to two of these elements:

Duty

Trucking regulations say, specifically, what truckers and trucking companies need to do.  These rules are explicitly laid out in trucking regulations to say what kinds of maintenance and inspections need to occur, what equipment is needed, etc.

Breach

If the trucking company or trucker violates any of these regulations, then that constitutes breach.  Failing to do a proper visual inspection before driving, failing to have proper brake maintenance, or skipping periodic inspections altogether is illegal.

If this breach causes the crash, then the regulatory violation will be a vital part of the injury claim.

FAQs for Truck Maintenance Issues in Truck Accident Cases

Can You Sue a Trucking Company for Violating Regulations?

You cannot sue a trucking company just because it violated the law; you need to show that that is what actually caused your crash.

What Are the Most Common Regulations Trucking Companies Violate?

Trucking companies commonly get in trouble, if not actually cause truck accidents, because of regulation violations in these areas:

  • Equipment requirements – E.g., what kinds of tires, brakes, and lighting are needed.
  • Maintenance requirements – E.g., what periodic maintenance is required, when parts need to be swapped out, etc.
  • Inspection requirements – E.g., how thoroughly drivers and trucking companies need to inspect their vehicles, what certification inspectors need.
  • Hours of service violations – How long drivers can stay on the road
  • Licensing requirements – What licensure standards truckers must meet
  • Driver health and safety requirements – What health conditions make drivers ineligible to drive.

How Often Do 18-Wheelers Need to Be Inspected?

There are two major requirements for commercial vehicle inspection:

  • Annual inspections performed either by the trucking companies or third-party inspectors
  • Inspections by the driver before driving (i.e., every time they get in the vehicle).

This second one is important, if brief.  However, it puts the burden on the driver rather than the trucking company to make sure that they looked over the truck and made sure they felt it was safe to drive.  This kind of violation might not be the trucking company’s direct fault, but it could be a sign that the trucking company hired a bad/dangerous driver if the driver repeatedly overlooked serious issues.

How Many Vehicles in the Fleet Need to Be Affected?

All you need to prove is that this one vehicle involved in your crash had maintenance or inspection issues to prove that it was unsafe.  You do not have to prove that the entire vehicle fleet was improperly maintained to show the trucking company was at fault.

However, if our South Carolina truck accident lawyers can show that the trucking company’s entire fleet had the same issues, and that improper maintenance was widespread, we may be able to show that the trucking company was reckless.  This could lead to additional punitive damages to punish the trucking company’s bad behavior.

Who Writes Trucking Regulations and Maintenance Requirements?

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) writes federal trucking regulations.  These apply to drivers, carriers, and trucking companies all over the country.

South Carolina can also institute its own requirements, but they are not typically as comprehensive and specific.  Violations of either state or federal regulations can constitute a breach of duty in a truck accident case.

Can You File an Insurance Claim for Maintenance Issues?

If the crash was caused by maintenance issues, South Carolina law lets you file a lawsuit, an insurance claim, or both.  We use an at-fault system, so the at-fault driver or trucking company pays for the damages they caused because of improper maintenance.

Can You Sue the Mechanics or Auto Shops?

Regulations put the burden on the trucking company to meet proper equipment and inspection standards, meaning they are typically responsible for the issues.  Also, the mechanics who make truck repairs and perform inspections typically work in-house at the trucking companies rather than at independent shops.

If an outside inspector or mechanic is used, it doesn’t stop the trucking company’s independent obligations to keep their trucks safe.  However, they may sometimes be able to shift the blame to those experts if they were able to rely on their promises about the truck’s condition.

Call Our Truck Accident Lawyers in South Carolina Today

Call (803) 451-4000 for a free case review with the Orangeburg, SC truck accident attorneys at Burriss Ridgeway Injury Lawyers.

Related Posts

Get a Free Consultation

Results

$11 Million
Confidential settlement regarding a father of three that was catastrophically injured at his workplace when he was the victim of negligent acts committed by a corporate defendant that placed him in danger.
Confidential settlement regarding a father of three that was catastrophically injured at his workplace when he was the victim of negligent acts committed by a corporate defendant that placed him in danger.
$8.5 Million
Client’s husband was struck and killed by a speeding driver working for a South Carolina corporation who was in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the crash. The decedent left behind a spouse and three children.
Client’s husband was struck and killed by a speeding driver working for a South Carolina corporation who was in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the crash. The decedent left behind a spouse and three children.
$6.2 Million
Client was struck and killed by a commercial vehicle that was distracted at the time of the crash. The event occurred on a rural South Carolina roadway. Claims were brought against the driver as well as the corporation.
Client was struck and killed by a commercial vehicle that was distracted at the time of the crash. The event occurred on a rural South Carolina roadway. Claims were brought against the driver as well as the corporation.
$6 Million
The Plaintiff was injured as a result of a failing component of a commercial motor vehicle that fell from the vehicle into the roadway. The Plaintiff brought claims against the owner and operator of the tractor trailer as well as the manufacturer of the vehicle.
The Plaintiff was injured as a result of a failing component of a commercial motor vehicle that fell from the vehicle into the roadway. The Plaintiff brought claims against the owner and operator of the tractor trailer as well as the manufacturer of the vehicle.
$5 Million
The client’s child was killed in a crash involving a trucking company. Claims were brought against both the trucking company and the owner of the faulty equipment that was unsafe for use on the roadway.
The client’s child was killed in a crash involving a trucking company. Claims were brought against both the trucking company and the owner of the faulty equipment that was unsafe for use on the roadway.
$4.1 Million
The Plaintiff was injured as a result of a refrigeration system that malfunctioned, spraying ammonia gas into the Plaintiff's face. As a result of this event, the Plaintiff sustained significant vision loss. The Plaintiff brought claims against his employer and the manufacturer of this system.
The Plaintiff was injured as a result of a refrigeration system that malfunctioned, spraying ammonia gas into the Plaintiff's face. As a result of this event, the Plaintiff sustained significant vision loss. The Plaintiff brought claims against his employer and the manufacturer of this system.
$2 Million
The Plaintiff was injured while riding his motorcycle when he collided with another vehicle. This event occurred in the city of Columbia and the Plaintiff sustained significant bodily injury resulting in extensive medical expenses and permanent injury.
The Plaintiff was injured while riding his motorcycle when he collided with another vehicle. This event occurred in the city of Columbia and the Plaintiff sustained significant bodily injury resulting in extensive medical expenses and permanent injury.
$1.8 Million
The Plaintiff was injured when he was rear-ended by a tractor trailer on Interstate 20. The Plaintiff brought claims against the owner and driver of the tractor trailer for his injuries relate to his lower back.
The Plaintiff was injured when he was rear-ended by a tractor trailer on Interstate 20. The Plaintiff brought claims against the owner and driver of the tractor trailer for his injuries relate to his lower back.
$1.5 Million
The Plaintiff sustained significant injury when she was attacked by a dog while performing repairs on a rental property. The Plaintiff was at the rental property as part of her employment with a rental management agency. She was attacked by the animal and sustained permanent nerve damage in her legs.
The Plaintiff sustained significant injury when she was attacked by a dog while performing repairs on a rental property. The Plaintiff was at the rental property as part of her employment with a rental management agency. She was attacked by the animal and sustained permanent nerve damage in her legs.
$1.3 Million
The Plaintiff was killed as a result of a collision with a logging truck that had been improperly loaded by a timber harvester. The proceeds of the settlement were funded by both the timber harvester and the owner of the logging truck.
The Plaintiff was killed as a result of a collision with a logging truck that had been improperly loaded by a timber harvester. The proceeds of the settlement were funded by both the timber harvester and the owner of the logging truck.
$1.5 Million
The Plaintiff underwent surgery to her neck as a result of injuries sustained when she was struck on the head by a piece of loading equipment at her job. The Plaintiff was employed by a national retailer and was engaged in stocking shelves when the piece of equipment failed. After settling her workers' compensation claim, the Plaintiff brought a claim against the manufacturer of this equipment.
The Plaintiff underwent surgery to her neck as a result of injuries sustained when she was struck on the head by a piece of loading equipment at her job. The Plaintiff was employed by a national retailer and was engaged in stocking shelves when the piece of equipment failed. After settling her workers' compensation claim, the Plaintiff brought a claim against the manufacturer of this equipment.
$1.1 Million
The Plaintiff brought a claim against a local medical facility for a false positive HIV reading. As a result of this false positive, the Plaintiff lived for 4½ years believing that she had the virus which leads to what she feared was an eventual AIDS diagnosis.
The Plaintiff brought a claim against a local medical facility for a false positive HIV reading. As a result of this false positive, the Plaintiff lived for 4½ years believing that she had the virus which leads to what she feared was an eventual AIDS diagnosis.
Read More

Recent Posts

Client Reviews