On December 3, 2019, a Florida appeals court rejected a novel theory that would have held a motor carrier fully liable for the negligent acts of an independent repair facility.  In dismissing the theory that a motor carrier owes a nondelegable duty for the negligent repairs of third party repair facilities, the court held that, “to accept [the] argument that [the motor carrier] should be held liable for [a repair facility’s] negligence would essentially impose a theory of strict liability upon [the motor carrier] and other motor carriers. This we decline to do.” Le v. Colonial Freight Systems, Inc., No. 1D18-39 (Fla. 1st DCA December 4, 2019).

Taylor & Associates represented the American Trucking Associations in its amicus curiae brief supporting the decision. At issue in the case was whether the motor carrier, Colonial Freight Systems, could be held fully liable for the damages caused when a tire dislodged from a trailer that was previously inspected and repaired by third party repair facility, TA Operating, LLC. Colonial Freight Systems hired TA Operating Systems to repair damage to the trailer’s axle and wheel hubs following a brake fire in the trailer’s rear axle. Once repaired, the motor carrier performed all required routine trailer inspections consistent with federal requirements, but did not detect the unrepaired damage within the wheel hub. Subsequently, a tire dislodged from the trailer and collided with another vehicle causing injuries to Ms. Le.

Ms. Le claimed that Colonial Freight Systems owed her a duty under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations to periodically inspect its vehicles to ensure that all parts and accessories on commercial vehicles are maintained or promptly repaired to meet minimum standards pursuant to 49 CFR §396.17(g), among other FMCSA regulations, and that it failed to meet this duty. Ms. Le argued that the motor carrier could not delegate that duty to third party repair facilities. Under this theory, the motor carrier would have a nondelegable duty to inspect and repair its vehicle, trailer, and equipment, and would be fully liable for the negligence of third parties that failed to properly perform the repairs.

In affirming the lower court’s ruling, the First District Court of Appeals found that the motor carrier satisfied its duty by performing all of the required inspections under the FMCSA regulations and by promptly sending the trailer to a qualified repair facility for repairs. The court recognized that federal regulations allow motor carriers to use qualified mechanics and inspectors and do not require a carrier to dissemble a wheel or hub during an inspection to verify that a qualified mechanic performed appropriate repairs. Thus, the court reasoned that Colonial Freight Systems satisfied its duty to inspect and repair the trailer.

The First District Court of Appeals then rejected the argument that a motor carrier cannot delegate the duty to a qualified repair facility to conduct the inspections and repairs. The court stated that such an argument, if accepted, would “create blanket liability for motor carriers whenever an accident occurs because of a faulty repair.” The court reasoned that the repair facility owes a duty to the person who paid for repairs and to third parties who are injured by negligent repairs. It further noted that the modest percentage of fault attributed to Colonial Freight Systems was reasonable because the motor carrier may have avoided the accident if it had checked the repair invoice and questioned the repair facility about the extent of the repairs. Therefore, the court affirmed that liability is appropriately apportioned according to the fault of the parties and that the motor carrier is not solely responsible for the negligence attributed to the third party repair facility.