However, most jurisdictions hold that common carriers of passengers are responsible for assaults and intentional torts against passengers by an employee, even if the employee’s motivation was entirely personal, under the theory that a passenger carrier has a non-delegable duty to protect its passengers.įederal regulations require a trucking company that leases a vehicle and driver, commonly referred to as an “owner/operator” lease, to have “exclusive possession, control and use” of the leased vehicle. A carrier cannot be held vicariously liable for the rape of a hitchhiker by a long haul driver since his actions are not in furtherance of the interests of his employer and are clearly outside the scope of his employment.

When a driver who has just delivered a load is operating a tractor-trailer while waiting for another dispatch, a jury issue exists as to whether he is acting within the scope of his employment with the motor carrier since his actions are not purely personal.Ī driver is outside the scope of his employment as a matter of law when he drops off his trailer at a carrier’s facility and then departs on a personal mission. Similarly, a driver’s use of alcohol or illegal drugs does not take him out of the scope of his employment when driving a commercial vehicle. A driver who violates a trucking company’s policies or procedures still acts within the scope of his employment while his activities are related to the company’s business. A driver acts within the scope of his employment if his actions further the carrier’s business in any manner even if the driver’s conduct also benefits himself. In such a situation, the motor carrier, as the employer of the driver, is only responsible for the driver’s actions while he is acting within the scope of his employment. When the driver is an actual employee of the trucking company, sometimes referred to as a “company driver,” the company’s liability is governed by state common law theories of agency.

D.o.t.safety rating review letter