Why Truck Accident Cases Are Different - and Why They Matter

0:00 – 0:17

VO: I think that’s such a copout. The rules exist for a reason, and they’re not that hard to comply with. Somebody comes in—a safety director—and says, “There are too many rules. Nobody could ever possibly be expected to follow them.” Plenty of trucking companies do. Plenty of large corporations are able to follow these rules and safely transport goods across the country without killing people.

0:17 – 0:27

Jordan: My name is Jordan Jones. I’m an attorney with Los Angeles Truck Accident Lawyers. Diana: I’m Diana Diskin with Los Angeles Truck Accident Lawyers.

VO: Welcome to Brake for Justice. In this episode: Why Truck Accidents Are Different.

0:27 – 0:40

Jordan: Diana, question for you. I think I know the answer already, but I’m going to ask it anyway. What’s the single biggest difference between a truck accident case versus a regular car accident case?

0:40 – 1:24

Diana: The injuries are so much more devastating in a truck case. We’re talking about a vehicle that is far heavier than a normal car, cruising along on a highway at a relatively high speed. When that impact occurs—when that wreck occurs—the effects are incredibly devastating for the people who are being hit. So the injuries are more severe. Often we see more wrongful death cases in trucking cases, and the consequences are far more than what we would see in a normal rear-end accident, for example.

1:24 – 1:38

Jordan: What about in terms of how you handle it? Do you handle it the same way as a car accident, or what do you do differently—if anything?

1:38 – 2:21

Diana: It’s totally different because there are so many rules that come into play for truck drivers, motor carriers, and all participants in the transportation chain. We have the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations throughout the country that mandate safety rules these participants are supposed to follow. With a trucking case, you have to immediately look at those rules because those rules are not the same rules that apply to the normal sedan driver—someone just picking up their kid from a soccer game. We’re talking about people transporting loads and property for profit, and special rules apply.

2:21 – 2:48

Jordan: I gotcha. Let me ask you this—because I’ve deposed hundreds of truck drivers and hundreds of safety directors, and I know you have as well. One thing I hear a lot is: “You can’t comply with all the rules. It’s impossible. There are too many rules.” Do you think that’s true? Are you buying it?

2:48 – 4:20

Diana: No. I think that’s such a copout. The rules exist for a reason, and they’re not that hard to comply with. There aren’t even that many rules. There are certainly many rules, but in terms of the number and what they’re asking for—we’re talking about the minimum safety level. If somebody comes in, a safety director, and says, “There are too many rules; nobody could ever possibly be expected to follow them,” plenty of trucking companies do. Plenty of large corporations are able to follow these rules and safely transport goods across the country without killing people.

4:20 – 5:46

Jordan: Yeah. And it’s interesting because you said “large corporations.” You and I have litigated against the big boys, but most of my cases have been mom-and-pops—five trucks or less, sometimes one truck. What about those folks?

Diana: They still need to follow the safety regulations, and they’re not hard to comply with. The regulations exist so that our highways are safe for everybody. Those highways aren’t just for trucks or the transportation of property alone—they’re for everyone to enjoy the right of travel.

Jordan: I agree. And there are so many resources out there—third-party safety departments that help with compliance, driver qualification, screening. There are companies that can do all your hiring and driver qualification. I get that it’s tough when you’re wearing many hats, but these rules are important—people get killed if they aren’t followed. If you’re a small mom-and-pop listening: lean on those third-party resources. Focus on the big ones that make a difference—driver qualification, hours of service, vehicle maintenance.

6:06 – 7:21

Jordan: Diana, you brought up rules and regs. What are some you think are really important?

Diana: I really love the hours-of-service regulations—because who doesn’t love doing math in the morning? And trying to reconstruct a driver’s workday. Those rules are super important and help us build the story: what was the driver doing hour by hour, minute by minute? Were the rules complied with? Were the hours accurate? If they’re in city X at one hour and suddenly in city Y 400 miles away an hour later—that helps build the story about whether safety regulations are being followed and whether the motor carrier is being truthful.

7:21 – 8:43

Jordan: That still happens. It’s less prevalent with e-logs, but we still see broken e-logs and paper logs. We have a case now with paper logs. The new cheating is unplugging logs and messing with logins—team drivers swapping logins to keep driving over hours while looking compliant. I hoped ELDs would overhaul safety, but people still cheat—just differently.

Diana: For every new rule, somebody finds a new way to break it.

8:43 – 11:35

Jordan: That’s a good segue: evidence and evidence disappearing—especially with telematics changing so fast. Are you doing anything differently in evidence preservation in the last 12–24 months?

Diana: Our preservation letters have to be more robust and constantly updated to reflect the latest telematics programs. If we miss something and someone is super literal, they’ll say, “Well, I guess I don’t have to preserve that.”

Jordan: Exactly. We’ve also started notifying vendors. Many ELDs are cloud-based—Samsara, Motive, etc. I sent a preservation letter once; logs disappeared. I went for spoliation, but the judge said they never had the logs—the vendor did (back then KeepTruckin). The judge said no possession/control. So now we tell carriers: notify vendors, preserve anything vendors hold. And when we learn who the vendors are, we send them letters too. This stuff goes quick—often a six-month window.

11:35 – 13:21

Diana: I just got an email from a friend handling a trucking case—defense said they didn’t have hours-of-service logs. I explained the 6-month maintenance rule, and that he should explore depositions and whether third parties have them or whether the company is lying.

Jordan: And other telematics—GPS data, AI driver reports—there may be no requirement to retain those at all. They could dump AI-generated reports the next day. That’s why you have to find retention periods, vendors, and act quickly. It’s changed dramatically—five years ago, three years ago, today—it’s all different.

13:21 – 15:26

Diana: Jordan, you’re coming to us from Michigan. You’ve been in California a few years. What differences do you see between other states and California’s rules?

Jordan: California is weird. Most states fully adopt the regs so they apply to intrastate commerce. California hasn’t fully adopted them—some parts yes, some no. You need interstate commerce for the regs to apply in California, and that makes things harder—especially with small motor carriers and chameleon carriers that aren’t in interstate commerce but need regulation the most. Also, logistics here is more complicated—subcontracting, brokers undertaking transport so they look like motor carriers. It’s very different litigating truck cases out here.

15:26 – 19:05

Diana: Who are the players in a typical trucking case? You mentioned chameleon carriers. Jordan: Bare minimum: shipper, motor carrier, receiver. But modern logistics is complicated: freight brokers, freight forwarders, subcontracting, double-brokered loads, 3PL/4PL/5PL, visibility software like MacroPoint, driver screening like HireRight, ELD/AI providers like Motive. It’s an expansive field—everyone has to do their job to get the load there safely.

Jordan: Who’s trying to dodge liability?

Diana: Everybody all the time. But probably the broker most—using preemption: “I’m not a motor carrier, rules don’t apply, I had nothing to do with it.” They want out of negligent selection and any argument they controlled transport timing or how the load was moved.

19:05 – 22:56

Jordan: The control argument feels like total BS. Brokers often control pickup/delivery times, instructions, tracking, stop locations—then claim independent contractor. They may not “fire” a driver directly, but they can stop giving loads—effectively firing them.

Diana: Speaking of control—how do you figure out who is actually controlling the driver/truck?

Jordan: Start with the contract—one side says they don’t control, the other imposes strict requirements and termination clauses. The smoking gun is communications: who tells the driver where to go and how to deliver—the carrier or the broker? I’ve had cases where the carrier didn’t even know the driver was on the load until the wreck.

Diana: We have a case like that right now.

Jordan: Brokers have created ultra-profitable trucking companies “called something else”—all upside, none of the regulatory downside, and when wrecks happen they argue no vicarious liability. Motor carriers get duped too—dependent on brokers for loads while brokers take profit without the problems.

23:26 – 26:50

Jordan: Beyond obvious evidence like maintenance records, how are you using telematics/EDR data now?

Diana: First obstacle is getting it—companies claim they don’t have it or don’t know how. Once you get it, it helps build the story: where the driver was, when, what the vehicle was doing, how it ended up in the wreck. EDR shows operation; telematics shows where/when/what; maintenance records show vehicle health (lights, brakes, inspections). Carriers are supposed to do pre- and post-trip inspections and document them.

Jordan: Another challenge is figuring out what tech they even had—it’s à la carte. We’ve started requesting vendor billing records to show what was available and what they chose not to get.

Diana: Those records can be illuminating—what they could have chosen, cost, and that they chose not to. And usually cost isn’t prohibitive.

26:58 – 29:16

Diana: What do you do when a black box is missing or overwritten?

Jordan: It happens. It depends on the system—Detroit Diesel gives more info; Volvo is very hard to download (practically two companies can do it), so in many Volvo cases it’s “missing” as a practical matter. Historically black box is speed, braking, cruise control. But now you can often get speed from ELDs, cameras, telematics (Lytx, Motive, Samsara). If I had to choose telematics vs black box, I’m picking telematics these days.

Diana: If it came down to it, I’d probably pick telematics too. But I still like crash data recorders.

29:37 – 33:23

Jordan: Our community is growing—new lawyers and lawyers new to trucking. What mistakes are you seeing from inexperienced plaintiff lawyers?

Diana: The basic one: thinking it’s just a case against the truck driver—it’s not. There are multiple corporate layers: motor carrier, broker, shipper potentially. All must be investigated and named. If you can’t identify everyone early, use Doe defendants (1–50) so you can add later. Virtually every trucking case has more than the driver and motor carrier.

Jordan: Biggest mistake is not understanding the transportation cycle and players. Identifying a broker is step one—then you have to understand what they did wrong. People get misled by “satisfactory rating/not in alert status,” but most carriers are unrated—zero doesn’t mean safe, it can mean never inspected. Also people don’t understand SAFER/DOT data—out-of-service percentages, BASIC scores, and what those actually mean in context.

33:29 – 33:33

VO: Thanks for listening to Brake for Justice. Visit us online at trucklawyers.com.