s a f e t y   &  o p e r a t i o n s

Falsification Of Logs

Is it proof that the driver meant to do harm?

WILLIAM KENWORTHY
CONTRIBUTING EDITOR

      One of your drivers is involved in an accident. Evidence shows that he is at fault. It is also discovered that he violated hours-of-service rules prior to the accident — and lied about it. You are liable for the accident and related damages. Can you also be "punished" with punitive damages?
      This is a question on which the courts are divided but, in a strongly worded decision, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently said no.
      The evidence in this case established that a driver named Belgrade had rear-ended a car just before midnight on July 24, 1999. He testified that he had become "mesmerized" by the road, did not recall seeing the plaintiff's car prior to the crash and did not brake or react prior to hitting the car.
      The Qualcomm reports, which monitored movement of Belgrade's truck, indicated 17 hours of uninterrupted rest before starting the trip. But an expert retained by the plaintiff testified that Belgrade had violated the 10-hour driving rule on several occasions during the week preceding the accident, and he had intentionally falsified his logs.
      His employer admitted liability for the accident and settled the plaintiff's claim for compensatory damages. The company then moved for dismissal of the punitive damages claim. The district court agreed that there was no evidence to support punitive damages, and ruled in favor of the carrier.
      The Seventh Circuit affirmed that decision. The accident occurred in Indiana and, under the law of that state, punitive damages may only be awarded when there is clear and convincing evidence that the defendant subjected other persons to probable injury, that he or she was aware of the danger but acted with heedless indifference to the consequences.
      The plaintiff argued that the driver's intentional falsification of log books and habitual deprivation of sleep culminated in his dangerous fatigue at the time of the crash. This intentional misconduct, they said, justified punitive damages.
      However, the court ruled that the log violations are merely evidence that Belgrade drove beyond the 10-hour limit earlier in the week and, therefore, may have been tired when he rear-ended the car. Those facts alone do not show that he knew an accident would probably occur. The fact that he intentionally lied is beside the point, the court said. It does not show that he consciously behaved in a way likely to cause injury.
      A decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 1990 reached basically the same result under Pennsylvania law. The facts in that case were even more aggravated. The truck driver had dozed off and struck a man standing at the side of the Pennsylvania Turnpike. He had been driving for 14 hours prior to the accident, and afterwards he had falsified his log in an attempt to conceal the infraction. The majority of the Third Circuit court denied punitive damages, holding that there was no evidence that the driver knew the reason for the 10-hour rule or that he consciously appreciated the risk of fatigue and the potential for a fatal accident.
      On the other hand, Texas and some other jurisdictions have a much more liberal attitude toward punitive damages. One court decision permitted a jury to consider punitive damages based upon an expert's testimony that sleeper team operations resulted in high levels of chronic driver fatigue, even though sleeper teams are clearly permitted under the federal motor carrier safety regulations.
      Another case involved a driver who had regularly exceeded the speed limit and had six hours-of-service violations and one missing log in the quarter preceding the accident. Although the company's log auditing system had recognized these violations, the driver had never received a warning about his conduct. The Texas court found this evidence of overlooked violations sufficient to support an award of punitive damages against his employer.
      Despite the mixed signals regarding punitive damages, one thing is clear: under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, evidence of safety violations and a causal relationship to an accident are sufficient to establish carrier negligence.