Written and reviewed by Josh Kohanim, Esq., California Bar No. 328609 · Reviewed
In this guide
This page is for people hurt in a commercial truck crash in Los Angeles County, and families of people killed in one, who want to know which companies can be held responsible. It covers the driver, the trucking company, owner-operators, brokers, shippers, rental and leasing companies, repair shops, and the insurance behind each. It does not cover case value or filing deadlines, which are on our Los Angeles truck accident lawyer page. For vans, pickups, and other vehicles driven for a business, start with our Los Angeles commercial vehicle accident lawyer page.
Potentially liable parties
Four terms do most of the work here. A motor carrier is the company that holds the operating authority and moves the freight. An owner-operator is a driver who owns the tractor and leases it, with themselves, to a carrier. A broker arranges transportation for compensation without moving anything. A shipper is the business whose goods are in the trailer.
| Party | Why they may answer | What proves it | Theory |
|---|---|---|---|
| Driver | Careless driving | Collision report, scene evidence, engine data | Negligence |
| Motor carrier | It employed the driver | Lease, dispatch records, pay records | CACI 3720 |
| Motor carrier | Its contractor hauled under its authority | Lease, bill of lading, operating authority | Nondelegable duty |
| Motor carrier | It hired or kept an unfit driver | Driver qualification file, prior violations | CACI 426 |
| Owner of the tractor | It entrusted the truck | Title, lease, what the owner knew | CACI 724 |
| Rental or leasing company | Its own negligence, such as maintenance | Lease, maintenance records | Negligence only |
| Freight broker | It selected an unsafe carrier | Carrier selection file, safety record | Negligent selection |
| Shipper or loader | It loaded or sealed the cargo | Bill of lading, seal record, weights | Negligence, contested |
| Repair shop | It repaired badly or skipped a requested repair | Work orders, inspection reports | Negligence |
| Parts or tire maker | The component failed | The part itself, failure analysis | Product liability |
The trucking company's liability
Respondeat superior is the rule that an employer answers for the acts of an employee committed within the scope of employment. CACI No. 3720, the jury instruction on the point, tells a California jury that conduct is within the scope if it is reasonably related to the kinds of tasks the employee was hired to perform, or reasonably foreseeable in light of the employer's business. A driver hauling the carrier's freight on the carrier's schedule clears that bar without much argument.
The carrier's usual answer is that the driver was not an employee at all. CACI No. 3704 hands that question to the jury. The most important factor is the right to control how the work was performed, not only the right to specify the result, and it counts whether or not the carrier used it. The jury also weighs who supplied the equipment, whether the work was part of the carrier's regular business, and how the driver was paid.
Owner-operators and leased trucks
An owner-operator owns the tractor and leases it, with himself as the driver, to a licensed carrier. 49 CFR 376.12(c)(1) requires that lease to give the carrier "exclusive possession, control, and use of the equipment" for its term, and to make the carrier "assume complete responsibility for the operation of the equipment." Paragraph (c)(4) adds that this language is not intended to decide whether the driver is an independent contractor or an employee. The lease is evidence, not an ending.
California reaches the carrier on a separate track, the nondelegable duty. In Eli v. Murphy (1952) 39 Cal.2d 598, the California Supreme Court held that a licensed highway carrier could not escape liability for an independent contractor's negligence in hauling its freight. Serna v. Pettey Leach Trucking, Inc. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1475 applied the rule to an interstate carrier, because hauling under public authority involves possible danger to the public. Vargas v. FMI, Inc. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 638 applied it to a federally licensed carrier that leased a tractor and drivers from an owner-operator.
The duty belongs to the company that holds the authority and carries the load. In Hu v. XPO Logistics, LLC (2026), a licensed broker that did not act as a carrier owed no such duty to the carrier's own injured driver. Whether a company acted as a carrier or only as a broker is a fact question, and the bill of lading and the load records answer it.
The trucking company's own negligence
Negligent hiring, supervision and retention is a direct claim against the company, and it does not depend on the driver being an employee. CACI No. 426 requires proof that the driver was or became unfit or incompetent for the work. It requires proof that the employer knew or should have known, and that the unfitness created a particular risk to others. Then it requires proof that the unfitness harmed the plaintiff and that the employer's negligence was a substantial factor in causing the harm. The driver qualification file is where that proof lives.
Negligent entrustment reaches whoever owned or lawfully held the truck. Under CACI No. 724 the plaintiff must prove that the driver drove negligently and that the defendant owned or lawfully held the vehicle. The rest is knowledge: that the defendant knew or should have known the driver was incompetent or unfit, permitted the driving anyway, and that the unfitness was a substantial factor in causing the harm. A carrier that put a driver back in a truck after a suspension is answering both instructions at once.
Freight brokers
49 CFR 371.2 defines a broker as a person who, for compensation, arranges or offers to arrange the transportation of property by an authorized motor carrier. Brokers pick the carrier. For years they answered injury claims by arguing that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act preempted, meaning overrode, any state negligence claim about that choice.
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected that argument on May 14, 2026, in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, No. 24-1238. A broker, C.H. Robinson, had arranged a load with a carrier whose truck struck Shawn Montgomery's tractor-trailer while it was stopped on the side of the road, and his leg was amputated. A unanimous Court, in an opinion by Justice Barrett, held that his claim that the broker negligently hired the carrier was not preempted, because it falls within the safety exception at 49 U.S.C. section 14501(c)(2)(A). The Ninth Circuit had already allowed these claims in Miller v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (9th Cir. 2020) 976 F.3d 1016, and Montgomery now settles the question nationwide.
Montgomery left questions open. The Court assumed, without deciding, that the Act would otherwise preempt the claim. It did not address section 14501(b)(1), which preempts state law on brokers' intrastate services and has no safety exception. Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Alito, wrote that "all agree" the Act does not permit state tort suits against brokers for arranging intrastate transportation. He added that brokers who "acted reasonably and arranged transportation with reputable trucking companies" should be able to defend.
So a claim against a broker turns on facts. The questions are what the broker knew or should have known about the carrier when it booked the load, such as its safety rating, operating authority, insurance, and crash and out-of-service history, and whether that choice caused the crash. The broker's carrier selection file holds most of the answer, and it can be requested in discovery, the exchange of evidence before trial.
Shippers and loaders
The shipper and the loader enter through the cargo. 49 CFR 392.9 makes the driver check that the load is distributed and secured before driving, again within the first 50 miles, and at intervals after that. Paragraph (b)(4) says those inspection rules "do not apply to the driver of a sealed commercial motor vehicle who has been ordered not to open it to inspect its cargo." When a trailer arrives sealed and badly loaded, that exception points back up the chain.
Whether a shipper can be sued at all is unsettled in California. In Casarez v. Irigoyen Farms, Inc. (2025), the Court of Appeal for the Fifth District held that federal law preempted negligence claims against a farm that loaded produce onto a truck whose driver it allegedly knew was exhausted, and against Walmart, the receiver. Casarez read the safety exception to require a direct connection to the vehicle. Montgomery later read the same words, "with respect to motor vehicles," to mean claims that concern motor vehicles.
The California Supreme Court denied review of Casarez on January 14, 2026. A petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to send the case back in light of Montgomery, No. 25-1421, is pending, and on September 10, 2026 the Court requested a response due October 13. Until that is resolved, a claim against a shipper in California should expect a preemption fight, and it is strongest when the shipper loaded the trailer itself and the defect was one the driver could not see.
Rental and leasing companies
The Graves Amendment, 49 U.S.C. section 30106, protects a company in the business of renting or leasing motor vehicles. It is not liable under state law "by reason of being the owner of the vehicle" for harm during the rental, if "there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner." In Tavares v. Zipcar, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2026), the Court of Appeal held that the Graves Amendment preempts owner liability under Vehicle Code section 17150 for rental and leasing companies.
That leaves the company's own conduct. A leasing company that kept the truck's brakes, tires, or lights in poor repair can answer for that negligence. An owner-operator that leases its tractor to a carrier is not automatically protected either: in Vargas v. FMI, the owner had not shown it was in the business of renting or leasing vehicles. Our guide to box truck accidents covers rental trucks and moving trucks.
Repair and maintenance shops
A shop that worked on the truck can owe a duty to people on the road. In Seo v. All-Makes Overhead Doors (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1193, the Court of Appeal listed four situations in which an independent repairer may owe a duty to an injured third party. The repairer negligently performed the repair, negligently failed to make a requested repair, contracted to inspect and maintain the equipment and did it badly, or took on the owner's inspection duty and failed at it. It owes no duty for an injury unrelated to its repair.
Seo involved a garage gate, not a truck, but the rule is general. The carrier keeps its own duty under 49 CFR 396.3, which requires every motor carrier to systematically inspect, repair, and maintain the vehicles under its control. The work orders and inspection reports show which of them failed.
Coverage per defendant
Liability without coverage recovers nothing, so the point of naming the right parties is what each one carries. 49 CFR 387.9 sets the federal floor for for-hire interstate carriers, and Vehicle Code section 34631.5 sets California's floor for carriers under a state permit.
| Vehicle and use | Minimum | Source |
|---|---|---|
| For-hire interstate carrier, 10,001 lbs or more, non-hazardous property | $750,000 | 49 CFR 387.9 |
| Oil and most hazardous materials or wastes | $1,000,000 | 49 CFR 387.9 |
| Listed bulk hazardous materials | $5,000,000 | 49 CFR 387.9 |
| California permit carrier of property | $750,000 combined single limit | Veh. Code 34631.5 |
| California passenger vehicle, policy issued on or after January 1, 2025 | $30,000 / $60,000 / $15,000 | Veh. Code 16056 |
| Owner who only lent the vehicle | $15,000 / $30,000 / $5,000 | Veh. Code 17151 |
A for-hire interstate carrier proves its federal coverage with Form MCS-90, a surety bond, or federal approval to self-insure, under 49 CFR 387.7. 49 CFR 387.15 sets the endorsement's form. In it, the insurer agrees to pay "any final judgment" against the carrier for negligent operation of covered vehicles, "regardless of whether or not each motor vehicle is specifically described in the policy." It pays only up to the federal minimum, it excludes the carrier's own employees and cargo, and the carrier must repay the insurer for anything the policy itself would not have covered.
The owner who only lent the vehicle is often overlooked. Vehicle Code section 17150 makes an owner responsible for a negligent driver who used the vehicle with permission, and CACI No. 720 is the instruction. But section 17151 caps that imputed liability, the owner's liability for the driver's negligence, at $15,000 for injury to one person, $30,000 for more than one, and $5,000 for property damage. The cap does not apply when the driver was the owner's employee or agent, so the search moves to the employer, the carrier, the broker and the shipper.
Truck collision, concussion
Sideswiped on the freeway by a semi-truck. Settled on the eve of trial.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Every case depends on its own facts, injuries, and insurance coverage. Amounts shown are gross recoveries before attorney's fees, costs, and medical liens.
Exceptions to the rule
- A public agency truck. If a city, county, school district or transit vehicle was involved, a written claim is due within six months under Government Code section 911.2, long before the two year deadline for a private defendant.
- You were the truck driver. Your first question is workers compensation, and a claim against a third party runs alongside it rather than instead of it. Claims by a carrier's own driver against a broker face added limits, as Hu v. XPO Logistics shows.
- A load brokered within California. Montgomery did not decide how federal law treats a broker that arranged a trip that never left the state, and Justice Kavanaugh wrote that all agree the Act bars those suits.
- A one-truck carrier at the federal minimum. Some carriers hold exactly $750,000 and nothing above it, so the broker, the shipper and any excess policy, the layer above the primary one, stop being optional and become the case.
- Cargo damage only. Freight loss is a contract and cargo claim under separate federal rules, not a personal injury claim, and nothing on this page applies to it.
Insurance for your truck crash
Usually more than one company, and the order matters. Start with the driver, then the carrier that dispatched the driver, then everyone who chose that carrier, leased that tractor, serviced those brakes, or loaded that trailer. Each link has a file, and each file has a policy behind it.
Working out that order takes the lease, the dispatch records, the driver qualification file and the bill of lading. All of them are held by the companies being sued, which is what the first months of the case are for. There is no fee unless we recover.
If fatigue is part of your crash, read hours of service and driver fatigue. If a container truck hit you near the harbor, read port and drayage truck accidents, and if a delivery van hit you, read delivery truck and last mile accidents. If someone in your family did not survive, our Los Angeles wrongful death lawyer page explains who may bring that claim.