What are the Laws for Truck Accidents in California?

California law has a number of specific regulations related to trucks and truck accidents [1]. For instance, commercial general liability (CGL) policies in California may contain an auto exclusion clause, which can prevent coverage for bodily injuries that arise from the use of an auto, even when the insured had no direct involvement with the vehicle involved in the accident [2].

The state of California also enforces the Biennial Inspection of Terminals (BIT) program, which mandates motor carriers to undergo a BIT inspection every two years and necessitates a 90-day maintenance program for all trucks operating in the state. This program requires daily inspections of each truck to guarantee it is in safe and working condition, and it also requires carriers to keep records of performed maintenance for at least 30 days [3].

If a trucking company transports hazardous materials, it would have been subject to fees from 1991 to 1995, with the proceeds being deposited into the Rail Accident Prevention and Response Fund [4].

As for jurisdiction, nonresident manufacturers of trucks can be subject to specific personal jurisdiction in California if their products are marketed in the state and used by the state's residents [1]. Moreover, a case can be brought in California against a nonresident defendant if there's a substantial connection between the plaintiff's cause of action and the defendant's activities in California [5].

Regulation 13 CCR § 2027 applies to owners and operators of on-road diesel-fueled, alternative diesel-fueled and dual-fueled heavy-duty drayage trucks operating in California, as well as to "motor carriers" that dispatch these trucks [6]. This regulation does not permit drayage trucks to operate in violation of other laws, including the California Vehicle Code and the California Health and Safety Code [6].

Under California law, a trucking company can file a lawsuit against its driver for indemnity for damages incurred from an accident, even if the driver's insurer is insolvent [7].

In San Francisco, the city requires tow truck operators and firms to obtain permits and display brochures summarizing California towing law. This falls within the safety exception to the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act's express preemption clause [8].

We often look to poor training as a major liability factor against the trucking company.

Cases, statutes, and regulations relating to Truck Accident Law

1. Daimler Trucks North America LLC v. Superior Court

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5, California.July 07, 202280 Cal.App.5th 946296 Cal.Rptr.3d 564

"…Nonresident manufacturer's business activities in California and other factors made it fair to allow specific personal jurisdiction in compliance with due process requirements and the long-arm statute in driver's negligence and products liability action in California seeking to recover damages for injuries sustained in an accident in Oklahoma during a long haul trip; reciprocal obligations were created through manufacturer's business activity in California, as state provided benefits and protections of its laws and in return, manufacturer had obligation to ensure that truck models it marketed in the state were safe for state's citizens to use, and further, state had significant interest in providing its residents with a convenient forum for redressing injuries inflicted by non-resident actors and enforcing its own safety regulations. U.S. Const. Amend. 14; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code S 410.10.…"

"…Hu opposed the motion. He argued Daimler was subject to specific jurisdiction because it had purposefully availed itself of the privilege of doing business in California by marketing, selling, and servicing within the state the same model of Freightliner truck involved in the accident. The Cascadia was specifically designed for long hauls, and "was outfitted with a specially designed sleeping compartment for this purpose." And because Daimler had "systematically served a market in California for the very vehicle that the Plaintiffs allege was defective and injured them," Hu's claims related to Daimler's contacts with California. Other ties to California were that Mr. Hu and his wife are California residents, Mr. Hu was working for a California company and driving to California at the time of the accident, the subject vehicle was purchased in California, and the bulk of the damages for pain and suffering and medical expenses occurred and would continue to occur in California. Hu continued that, by marketing, selling, servicing and supporting their Freightliner trucks in California, Daimler had notice it could be subject to suit there. The fact the particular truck involved in this litigation came to California through an intermediary did not make jurisdiction unfair, especially because Daimler certainly understood that some of its trucks likely would be resold in California. That the injury occurred out of state did not defeat jurisdiction either. Daimler's extensive business operations in this state supported a finding of personal jurisdiction, as did the fact that it knew-and its marketing campaign promoted-that the Freightliner trucks would be used by its owners for cross-country transportation. According to Hu, a necessary incident of Daimler's business was the risk that its activities in any state could foreseeably cause injury to a person in a distant forum.…"

"…Fact that nonresident manufacturer did not design, manufacture, assemble, or sell truck model involved in California did not preclude court from exercising specific personal jurisdiction in compliance with due process requirements and the long-arm statute over it in driver's products liability and negligence action seeking to recover for injuries sustained in an accident in Oklahoma during a long haul trip, because the trucks were manufactured and marketed for use presented, as manufacturer sold the California market on trips that emanated from California to other states and back. U.S. Const. Amend. 14; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code S 410.10.…"

"…Nonresident manufacturer actively sought to serve market for truck model involved in driver's negligence and products liability action against it in California, and thus, it satisfied the purposeful availment element necessary for the court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction in compliance with the Due Process Clause and the long-arm statute, where manufacturer advertised across multiple media nationally and regionally, including in California, urging purchases of the vehicles, sold the truck model at issue through 32 dealerships in California, sold and shipped parts for the trucks to 27 California dealerships, furnished technological support by which customers were directed to service locations for the trucks, and took various measures to ensure customers in California would continue to have relationships with the truck brand. U.S. Const. Amend. 14; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code S 410.10.…"

2. Maxum Indemnity Company v. Kaur

United States District Court, E.D. California.December 12, 2018356 F.Supp.3d 9872018 WL 6528427

"…Under California law, coverage for truck driving school's alleged liability for negligently training driver involved in single-vehicle accident was barred by commercial general liability (CGL) policy's unambiguous auto exclusion for bodily injury arising out of use of any auto, including supervision, hiring, employment, training, or monitoring of anyone in connection with use of any auto, even though school had no connection to the truck; exclusion would not eliminate all coverage and focused on connection between vehicle and injury, not vehicle and insured.…"

3. Summers v. A.L. Gilbert Co.

Court of Appeal, Fifth District, California.February 09, 199969 Cal.App.4th 115582 Cal.Rptr.2d 162

"…In 1989, the state of California implemented the BIT program, which required every motor carrier to submit an application for a BIT inspection. This program required the inspection of any truck terminal every two years. It was stipulated that at the time of the accident, Cotton had not complied with the requirements of the BIT program. Also, California law mandates a 90-day maintenance program for all trucks operating in the state, and requires a daily inspection of every truck prior to operation to ensure it is in a safe condition and in good working order. Cotton did not have such a program prior to the date of the accident. Additionally, the California Vehicle Code prescribes a preventative maintenance program for trucks, which includes a requirement that the carrier maintain records of the maintenance performed for at least 30 days. Cotton was unaware of the requirement to maintain the maintenance records on its trucks and did not do so.…"

4. BNSF Railway Company v. California Department of Tax and Fee Administration

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.September 13, 2018904 F.3d 7552018 WL 4354380

"…California could easily have imposed on railroads and trucking companies equivalent, or roughly equivalent, fees related to the transportation of hazardous materials. Indeed, it did so from 1991 to 1995, under a statute that imposed fees on both railroads and trucking companies. The proceeds were deposited in the Rail Accident Prevention and Response Fund, which was then used to fund local hazardous waste response equipment and training. See Cal. Pub. Util. Code SS 7713, 7714.5(e). Prior to the passage of SB 84, the California legislature considered and rejected a plan to finance the Fund in a similar manner, assessing fees against both railroads and trucking companies. Cal. State Assemb. 102, 2015 Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2015). Instead of adopting such a plan, the legislature passed SB 84, assessing fees against only railroads.…"

"…Trucking accidents, on the other hand, are more frequent but are smaller in scale. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, from 2010 to 2014 in the United States there were 67,639 "incidents" involving transportation of hazardous materials on highways, compared to 3,530 incidents involving transportation by rail. According to the report of the Legislative Analyst, during the period between 2005 and 2015 in California 92% of the costs associated with hazardous materials spills arose out of trucking accidents. Notably, however, that time period does not include the catastrophic 1991 Dunsmuir derailment.…"

"…As is made clear from the record, shipment by truck and shipment by rail both pose very serious risks. The concurrence relies on the Legislative Analyst's report to suggest that 92% of the costs of spills might properly be allocated to trucks as "commensurate" with the risk. Conc. Op. at 776-77. The Analyst's report did state that 92% of the costs associated with hazardous materials spills in California were due to trucking accidents, but the period at issue was 2005 to 2015. The record is clear that railroad accidents, while less frequent than trucking accidents, are often catastrophic when they do occur. Such accidents include the Dunsmuir pesticide spill in California in 1991 (outside the 2005-2015 period considered in the Analyst's report), the oil spill in Mosier, Oregon, in 2016, and several other catastrophic railroad accidents documented in the record. In the case of the Dunsmuir spill, clean up costs and other damages were paid only after the fact and only after suit was brought. As recounted above, the suit was settled for $38,000,000.…"

5. Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc.

Supreme Court of California.December 12, 199614 Cal.4th 434926 P.2d 1085

"…This court examined the problem of specific jurisdiction in Cornelison, supra, 16 Cal.3d 143, 127 Cal.Rptr. 352, 545 P.2d 264. There we held that a California resident could sue a Nebraska defendant in California for wrongful death in connection with an accident that occurred in Nevada. Because the defendant was engaged in the business of hauling goods by truck and made fairly frequent deliveries in California, and the accident occurred while he was en route to California for further deliveries, we found a "substantial nexus between plaintiff's cause of action and defendant's activities in California." (Id. at p. 149, 127 Cal.Rptr. 352, 545 P.2d 264.) We explained that the appropriate inquiry is whether the plaintiff's cause of action "arises out of or has a substantial connection with a business relationship defendant has purposefully established with California." (Ibid.) We commented that if, as we found, the defendant's activities are not so wide ranging as to justify general jurisdiction, "then jurisdiction depends upon the quality and nature of his activity in the forum in relation to the particular cause of action. In such a situation, the cause of action must arise out of an act done or transaction consummated in the forum, or defendant must perform some other act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. Thus, as the relationship of the defendant with the state seeking to exercise jurisdiction over him grows more tenuous, the scope of jurisdiction also retracts, and fairness is assured by limiting the circumstances under which the plaintiff can compel him to appear and defend. The crucial inquiry concerns the character of defendant's activity in the forum, whether the cause of action arises out of or has a substantial connection with that activity, and upon the balancing of the convenience of the parties and the interests of the state in assuming jurisdiction." (Id. at pp. 147-148, 127 Cal.Rptr. 352, 545 P.2d 264, fn. omitted, italics added, citing Hanson v. Denckla (1958) 357 U.S. 235, 250-253, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1237-1239, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283; McGee v. International Life Ins. Co. (1957) 355 U.S. 220, 223, 78 S.Ct. 199, 201, 2 L.Ed.2d 223; and Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 893, 898-899, 80 Cal.Rptr. 113, 458 P.2d 57.)…"

"…We also note that the substantive relevance test proposed by Seabest would have produced a different outcome in Cornelison, supra, 16 Cal.3d 143, 127 Cal.Rptr. 352, 545 P.2d 264. In that case, the defendant's forum activities (making deliveries in California) presumably would not have been relevant in the wrongful death action based upon a claim that the defendant negligently drove his truck, thereby causing the accident in Nevada. Nonetheless, we were of the view that California could, consistently with "fair play and substantial justice," exercise specific jurisdiction over the defendant.…"

6. § 2027. In-Use On-Road Diesel-Fueled Heavy-Duty Drayage Trucks.

13 CA ADC § 2027

"…(1) This regulation applies to owners and operators of on-road diesel-fueled, alternative diesel-fueled and dual-fueled heavy-duty drayage trucks that operate in California, "motor carriers" that dispatch drayage trucks that operate in California, "marine or port terminals," "intermodal rail yards," and "rail yard and port authorities."…"

"…(k) Relationship to Other Law. Nothing in this section allows drayage trucks to operate in violation of other applicable law, including, but not limited to: (1) California Vehicle Code;2) California Health and Safety Code;…"

7. Black Diamond Asphalt, Inc. v. Superior Court

Court of Appeal, Third District, California.December 10, 2003114 Cal.App.4th 1097 Cal.Rptr.3d 466

"…Under law applicable to the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA), to extent of its self-insured retention limit, trucking company could maintain action against its driver for indemnity for damages incurred from accident even though driver's insurer was insolvent, and it could maintain indemnity action for any sum in excess of limits of driver's policy regardless of whether claim was for sums in excess of trucking company's self-insured retention limit. West's Ann.Cal.Ins.Code S 1063.1(c)(5).…"

8. California Tow Truck Ass'n v. City and County of San Francisco

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.December 08, 2015807 F.3d 10082015 WL 8289267

"…Requirement of city's permit scheme for tow truck operators and tow truck firms, mandating that firms conspicuously display brochures containing concise summary of California towing law, fell within the safety exception to the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act's (FAAAA) express preemption clause; city's board of supervisors made safety-related findings when adding brochure requirement to permit scheme, there was no indication that board's safety findings were pretextual, and brochures in question both promoted safety by providing consumers with information that could reduce confrontation and enabled the effectiveness and enforcement of scheme's other safety-related provisions by ensuring that customers were aware of their rights and so were able to register complaints when those rights were violated. 49 U.S.C.A. S 14501(c)(2)(A).…"

9. BNSF Railway Company v. California State Board of Equalization

United States District Court, N.D. California.October 28, 2016Not Reported in Fed. Supp.2016 WL 6393507

"…California does not, and could not, argue SB 84 encompasses more than railroads. The state argues instead that there is "ample justification" for SB 84's focus on rail transport. California contends the bill passed in response to specific concerns about its ability to respond to a rail spill involving hazardous materials. California argues a single train can carry far more hazardous material than a truck, and that therefore the potential impact of a derailment or other rail accident "dwarfs" the threat posed by an accident involving a truck. California reports its policy advisors concluded the current emergency response system for releases of hazardous materials along rail routes (particularly in remote areas) was inadequate, but that no similar risks were identified for the transportation of hazardous material by truck.…"

"…Nevertheless, California has not shown that it is consistent with the fairness requirement of the HMTA for it to impose a fee that distinguishes between the modes of hazardous material transportation. This is particularly so given that the law on its face contemplates that at least some, if not all, of the spill response resources to be funded by the fees will be equally useful in addressing trucking accidents. Even though the Fund must be reimbursed, as the Railroads point out, merely requiring reimbursement of equipment operating expenses does not excuse saddling the rail industry with the cost of acquiring equipment that very well could be used by the trucking industry as much or more than by the rail industry.…"

"…1. Rail v. Trucking. First, the Railroads argue SB 84 unfairly discriminates as between rail transportation and truck transportation. The Railroads proffer evidence that while nationally, railroads and trucks carry roughly equal amounts of hazardous materials, "as measured by ton-mileage," trucks experience approximately 15-20 more "hazardous material incidents" than railroads do. The Railroads assert the California Legislature declined to adopt a different bill-AB 102-that would have applied the hazardous material fee scheme to both railroads and motor carriers. The Railroads also advance evidence to show that notwithstanding the apparently small dollar amount of the fee per rail car, the charge will drive at least some shippers to choose truck over rail transport.…"

10. Contreras v. Rice

United States District Court, C.D. California.May 07, 19985 F.Supp.2d 8541998 WL 264233

"…Evidence in second degree murder prosecution under California law supported finding of malice aforethought; evidence established pattern of reckless driving by bandit tow truck drivers in general and by defendant in particular, defendant had received numerous citations for traffic violations, had been arrested for reckless driving, had prior accident, and actively was racing other tow truck drivers to accident scene at time of fatal collision that gave rise to instant conviction, and evidence indicated that defendant knew brakes on his tow truck were not functioning properly on day of collision. West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code S 187(a).…"

11. California Tow Truck Ass'n v. City and County of San Francisco

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.August 13, 2015797 F.3d 7332015 WL 4760001

12. Lewis v. Davis United States District Court, E.D. California.August 20, 2018Not Reported in Fed. Supp.2018 WL 4024811

"…Accordingly, the California Supreme Court was not unreasonable in rejecting these allegations relating to failure to present mitigating evidence of the truck-bike accident.…"

13. California Tow Truck Ass'n v. City & County of San Francisco

United States District Court, N.D. California.March 02, 2013928 F.Supp.2d 11572013 WL 791265

"…ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. If tow trucks or tow firms do business in the City and County of San Francisco ("City"), the City requires them to participate in a permit system ("Permit System"). Plaintiff, the California Tow Truck Association ("CTTA"), seeks a declaration that the Permit System is preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act ("FAAAA"), along with a no-enforcement injunction and attorney's fees. The FAAAA expressly preempts state and municipal laws "related to a price, route, or service of" tow trucks, 49 U.S.C. S 14501(c)(1), but also expressly preserves state authority to regulate (1) motor vehicle safety, (2) minimum insurance requirements, and (3) the price of nonconsensual tows, id. SS 14501(c)(2)(A), (c)(2)(C).…"

14. Dilts v. Penske Logistics, LLC

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.September 08, 2014769 F.3d 6372014 WL 4401243

"…Sixth, and relatedly, Defendants argue that finding routes that allow drivers to comply with California's meal and rest break laws will limit motor carriers to a smaller set of possible routes. But Defendants, who bear the burden of proof in establishing the affirmative defense of preemption, PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, --- U.S. ----, 131 S.Ct. 2567, 2587, 180 L.Ed.2d 580 (2011), submitted no evidence to show that the break laws in fact would decrease the availability of routes to serve the Whirlpool accounts, or would meaningfully decrease the availability of routes to motor carriers in California. Instead, Defendants submitted only very general information about the difficulty of finding parking for commercial trucks in California. Although compliance with California's meal and break laws may require some minor adjustments to drivers' routes, the record fails to suggest that state meal and rest break requirements will so restrict the set of routes available as to indirectly bind Defendants, or motor carriers generally, to a limited set of routes, Am. Trucking, 660 F.3d at 397, or make the provision or use of specific routes necessary for compliance with the law, Air Transp. Ass'n, 266 F.3d at 1074. Moreover, drivers already must incorporate into their schedule fuel breaks, pick ups, drop offs and, in some cases, time to install products or wait for their partner to complete an installation.…"

In many of our truck accident cases we have seen remarkably poor training of drivers. We have also seen a deliberate company policy to hire drivers at almost any skill level because a lack of drivers puts the company profits at risk.

If you have been in an accident involving a truck, our top level truck accident lawyers will get you the maximum recovery for your losses, damage and injuries.

The Legal Basics of Truck Accident Law in California

What are the Laws for Truck Accidents in California?

Cases, statutes, and regulations relating to Truck Accident Law