Moving Beyond the “One-Defendant” Truck Accident Case

In many trucking accident lawsuits, the most visible defendant is the motor carrier—the company that employs or contracts with the commercial driver involved in the crash. Plaintiffs routinely assert claims against the carrier for:

• Negligent hiring, training, supervision, retention, and entrustment
• Failure to comply with federal safety regulations
• Negligent maintenance, inspection, or repair of vehicles
• Vicarious liability for the negligent acts of drivers acting within the scope of employment

While these claims are often well-supported, limiting a case to the driver and carrier alone can overlook upstream negligence that played a decisive role long before the collision occurred.

Commercial trucking is not a solitary activity. It is the result of layered contractual and operational decisions involving shippers, freight brokers, maintenance contractors, and equipment manufacturers. In many cases, the crash is the foreseeable result of systemic safety failures, cost-cutting decisions, or negligent vetting practices that placed an unsafe truck or driver on the road.

Connecticut negligence law permits injured plaintiffs to pursue claims against all parties whose conduct was a proximate cause of the injury, including those whose failures occurred well before the moment of impact.

The Structure of Commercial Transportation: Who Is Responsible?

Federal law distinguishes among the principal actors involved in commercial transportation:

• A motor carrier is “a person providing motor vehicle transportation for compensation.” (49 U.S.C. § 13102(14))
• A shipper is a person or entity that tenders property or hazardous materials to a carrier for transportation. (49 C.F.R. § 390.5)
• A broker acts as an intermediary, retained by the shipper to locate, vet, and hire a motor carrier

In a typical transaction, the shipper owns or supplies the cargo and either directly retains a carrier or hires a broker to do so on its behalf. When a trucking crash occurs, liability analysis must look beyond what happened on the roadway to examine who made the decisions that allowed a particular carrier and driver to perform the work.

Motor Carrier Liability Under Connecticut and Federal Law

Motor carriers remain central defendants in most trucking accident cases. Under both federal regulations and Connecticut common law, carriers owe non-delegable duties to ensure that their drivers are qualified and their vehicles are safe to operate.

Common theories of motor carrier liability include:

• Negligent hiring, training, supervision, retention, and entrustment
• Failure to discipline or remove drivers with known safety violations
• Failure to review or act on FMCSA Pre-Employment Screening Program (PSP) reports
• Failure to inspect, maintain, or repair vehicles

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) regulations require carriers to systematically inspect and maintain their fleets. (49 C.F.R. § 396.39). When crashes involve brake failure, tire blowouts, steering defects, lighting failures, or underride protection issues, a carrier’s maintenance practices often become a central focus of litigation.

Negligent Selection Under Connecticut Law: Shippers and Brokers

Liability in Putnam trucking cases frequently extends beyond the motor carrier to include shippers and freight brokers under negligent selection principles.

Although no federal statute precisely defines how shippers or brokers must vet carriers, Connecticut common law imposes a duty of reasonable care on parties whose conduct foreseeably creates a risk of physical harm to others. Connecticut courts routinely look to Restatement (Second) of Torts § 411 as persuasive authority in negligent hiring and selection cases.

Under this framework, liability may arise where an entity fails to exercise reasonable care to select a contractor competent to perform work that involves a risk of physical harm unless skillfully and carefully done. Commercial trucking clearly qualifies as such work.

As a result:

• A shipper may be liable for negligently selecting an unsafe carrier
• A broker may be liable for negligently selecting a carrier on the shipper’s behalf
• A shipper may be liable for negligently selecting an incompetent or careless broker

Importantly, liability does not require proof that the shipper or broker knew a crash would occur. It is sufficient to show that they knew or should have known the carrier lacked the safety record, qualifications, or competence necessary to perform the work safely.

Connecticut CDL and DMV Standards: Defining the Standard of Care

Connecticut’s Commercial Driver License (CDL) Manual, promulgated by the Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles, provides critical guidance in negligent selection cases. While the manual is instructional, it reflects mandatory minimum safety and qualification standards that define what constitutes a competent commercial driver operating in or through Connecticut.

Under Connecticut law, a CDL is required to operate:

• Vehicles with a GVWR of 26,001 pounds or more
• Combination vehicles meeting gross combination weight thresholds
• Vehicles designed to transport 16 or more passengers
• Vehicles transporting hazardous materials requiring placarding

Connecticut further requires:

• Minimum age thresholds (18 intrastate; 21 interstate/hazardous materials)
• Valid medical certification
• Successful completion of knowledge and skills testing
• Proper endorsements (hazmat, tank, doubles/triples, passenger, school bus)
• Compliance with license restrictions

These requirements establish baseline competence and safety expectations. A shipper or broker that fails to verify whether a carrier’s drivers hold valid CDLs, appropriate endorsements, unrestricted driving privileges, and current medical certifications may be found to have failed to exercise reasonable care under Connecticut law.

Key Questions in a Connecticut Negligent Selection Case

Negligent selection claims are fact-intensive. Central questions include:

• What investigation did the shipper or broker actually perform?
• What safety information was available through FMCSA and DMV records?
• What investigation would a reasonably prudent shipper or broker have conducted?
• Would proper vetting have revealed prior crashes or out-of-service violations?
• Should the carrier have been hired in light of that information?
• Is there a causal connection between the carrier’s incompetence and the crash?

Answering these questions requires targeted discovery, including contracts, carrier-selection policies, FMCSA Company Snapshot data, CDL records, maintenance files, and internal communications.

Why Shipping Company and Upstream Liability Matters

Truck accidents frequently cause catastrophic injuries, permanent disability, or death. The resulting damages often exceed the insurance limits available to any single defendant.

Connecticut’s comparative negligence and apportionment framework allows juries to allocate responsibility among multiple negligent parties. Identifying all responsible entities is essential to maximizing recovery and ensuring accountability reflects the true chain of causation.

The evidence may show that:

• A shipper prioritized cost over safety
• A broker ignored clear safety red flags
• A maintenance contractor failed to correct known defects
• A manufacturer supplied a defective component

Limiting a case to the driver and carrier alone can artificially cap recovery and obscure systemic safety failures.

Why Injured Clients Trust Etemi Law

Etemi Law has decades of combined experience holding negligent parties accountable for serious injuries and wrongful deaths. Trucking accident cases are among the most demanding matters we handle, involving federal regulations, multiple corporate defendants, and aggressive insurance defense tactics.

We have the experience, resources, and litigation focus to:

• Conduct comprehensive liability investigations
• Identify every responsible party
• Retain qualified trucking and safety experts
• Aggressively pursue maximum compensation

Frequently Asked Questions

FAQ: Who can be sued in a Putnam truck accident case?

Potential defendants include the driver, motor carrier, shipper, freight broker, maintenance contractors, and manufacturers.

FAQ: Can a shipper or broker really be held liable?

Yes. Under Connecticut negligent selection principles, shippers and brokers may be liable if they failed to exercise reasonable care in selecting a carrier.

FAQ: What if the trucking company says the driver was an independent contractor?

Independent contractor labels do not automatically shield companies from liability. Courts look at control, safety duties, and regulatory obligations.

FAQ: Why is it important to identify multiple defendants?

Multiple defendants increase available insurance coverage and ensure fault is properly allocated.

FAQ: What does it cost to speak with Etemi Law?

Consultations are free and confidential. There is no obligation to proceed.

Speak With a Putnam Truck Accident Lawyer at Etemi Law

If you or a loved one was injured in a trucking accident in Connecticut, you deserve a thorough investigation and full accountability. Etemi Law is prepared to help you understand your rights and pursue justice.