[gt-link lang="es" label="Se Habla Español" widget_look="lang_names"]
[gt-link lang="en" label="English" widget_look="lang_names"]
Before a trucking company can lawfully have a driver drive an 80,000-pound vehicle, federal law requires it to obtain the driver’s motor vehicle record. They must confirm that the driver holds a valid commercial driver’s license and obtain the driver’s medical certification. Since January 2020, carry out a query of the FMCSA Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse both when hiring the driver and again each year thereafter. Officials put all these procedures in place because they can verify each driver’s history through records before that truck joins Interstate 15.
At BAM Personal Injury Lawyer, we have prepared cases against trucking companies in situations where the driver’s own negligence was almost irrelevant. The real issue was who the company originally employed for that position and what the company knew or ought to have known before making the hire. Explain in detail how the "negligent hiring" theory functions under the law, what kind of words are actually needed to prove it, and in what ways it differs from the more common view that a company is liable for its driver’s mistakes.
In this article:
The view that a trucking company should be held liable simply because it employed the driver who caused the accident holds true. However, this represents just one legal argument. It is not the only theory available nor necessarily the most advantageous one for every situation.
| Legal Theory | What You Must Prove | What It Opens Up | Survives if Company Admits the Driver Was Negligent? |
| Vicarious liability (respondeat superior) | The driver was negligent, and was acting within the scope of employment at the time | Company liability for the driver’s on-road conduct | Not applicable — this is the admission |
| Negligent hiring | The company knew or should have known the driver was unfit before hiring, and hired them anyway | Discovery into hiring files, background checks, and internal safety standards | Often still pursued, particularly where punitive damages are sought |
| Negligent entrustment | The company knew or should have known the driver was unfit at the time it assigned that specific truck or route | Discovery into dispatch decisions and day-of-assignment knowledge | Often still pursued for the same reason |
| Negligent retention/supervision | The company learned of a problem after hiring and failed to retrain, discipline, or remove the driver | Discovery into post-hire incident reports, complaints, and disciplinary records | Often still pursued for the same reason |
The significance in practice is that vicarious liability will only allow you to reach the driver's actions. Negligent hiring, entrustment, and retention enable you to go to the company's own decision-making. Utah direct negligence claims brought against the company can result in punitive damages in a manner that simple vicarious liability generally cannot. Punitive damages usually require proof of the company's own knowing or reckless behaviour rather than just that of its employee.
The section that most people are unaware of is precisely what makes negligent hiring a provable issue rather than one that is merely speculative. According to FMCSA regulations, a motor carrier must typically do the following.
Many carriers also obtain a Pre-Employment Screening Program (PSP) report, the report showing the driver’s five-year crash record and three-year roadside inspection record, directly from the FMCSA’s own databases. If a Driver Qualification File is incomplete, missing required documents, or shows that no mandatory Clearinghouse query was ever conducted, that gap is not simply a procedural requirement. It frequently serves as the clearest and most decisive piece of proof in a negligent hiring claim.
A driver who poses a risk does not usually appear unsafe by chance. The warning signs typically exist in records that the company was required to obtain and review. Some of the examples we look for include:
None of these circumstances by themselves automatically amount to proof of negligence. A company that had the information and still hired the driver or retained him is in a very different legal position from one that had no means of knowing.
Like any negligence claim, a Utah negligent hiring case still requires proving duty, breach, causation, and damages. The “breach” here is the company’s own hiring decision, not the driver’s on-road conduct. Utah applies a modified comparative fault rule set out at le.utah.gov, Title 78B, Chapter 5, Section 818. Under this rule, a plaintiff’s recovery decreases or becomes entirely barred when their assigned fault equals or exceeds the total fault attributed to the defendants. That makes it especially important in a trucking case to have more than one theory of liability on the table. A jury allocating fault between a negligent driver and a negligent employer is a very different calculation than allocating fault to a single driver alone.
Utah’s general deadline for filing a personal injury lawsuit is generally four years from the date of injury under Utah Code § 78B-2-307. That deadline can shift significantly depending on the specific facts of the case. Confirming your specific timeline with an attorney early is worth doing rather than assuming.
Salt Lake City is located at the junction of two major interstate freight routes. The Utah Department of Transportation has been working for years to redesign the interchanges along the Point of the Mountain. This is solely due to the high volume and seriousness of crashes in that area. The Utah Highway Patrol's commercial vehicle enforcement unit carries out inspections of trucks travelling through the state. A large amount of interstate freight passes through. Many of the trucking companies whose drivers are responsible for crashes in Utah are not based in the state at all. The out-of-state status of these companies carries practical consequences. They store hiring and safety records in another state and maintain no local presence. This circumstance makes it uniquely challenging in Utah trucking cases to identify the proper responsible entity and preserve critical records without delay.
Trucking companies bear no obligation to keep all records forever. Some safety-related records such as electronic logging device logs and dash camera footage are automatically erased on a routine schedule. Unless the company receives instructions to preserve it. For this reason, one of the most time-sensitive steps following a serious truck accident involves sending the carrier a preservation letter. It is also known as a litigation hold notice. Clearly list the Driver Qualification File, Clearinghouse query history, ELD data, dash camera footage, and dispatch records. Send this notice as early as possible instead of waiting until you officially file a lawsuit.
Hold Negligent Carriers AccountableWhen trucking companies cut corners by hiring unqualified drivers, ignoring safety records, or skipping mandatory background checks, they put everyone on Utah roads at risk. Under Utah law, motor carriers can be held directly liable for negligent hiring, entrustment, and supervision. The experienced legal team at BAM Personal Injury Lawyers knows how to subpoena driver qualification files, maintenance logs, and safety records to build an unassailable claim against negligent trucking corporations. Contact us today to secure the justice and full compensation you deserve.
Negligent hiring involves looking back to assess whether the company should have spotted a problem before employing the driver. Negligent entrustment, on the other hand, focuses on a particular instance. Whether the company knew or ought to have known that the driver was unfit to operate that specific vehicle on that particular journey, no matter how long they had already worked for the company. A company may lose on a negligent hiring claim but win on negligent entrustment, or the opposite outcome. A driver hired years ago with a satisfactory record may later fail a drug test. You must report this to the Clearinghouse. If the company still dispatches that same driver the following week, that action forms a new negligent entrustment claim. Although the original hiring record appears clean, something may have changed. For example, a DUI, a failed test, or a recorded complaint—which the company was aware of but ignored before the specific trip in question.
Yes, frequently. Federal trucking regulations do not allow a carrier to escape its responsibilities merely by referring to the driver as a contractor. Under 49 CFR Part 390, any driver operating a commercial motor vehicle leased to a motor carrier and using that carrier’s operating authority is treated as the carrier’s employee under federal safety rules. This status applies regardless of whether the contract labels the driver an independent contractor or uses other language to disclaim an employment relationship. This matters greatly for owner-operators and drivers using leased trucks, both common in long-haul freight through Utah. It's one of the first points to examine rather than assuming that calling the driver a contractor ends the company's liability.
This issue creates a genuine split among courts across the country. Many states follow what courts call the admission rule. Under that rule, when a company admits vicarious liability for its driver, some courts dismiss separate claims for negligent hiring or entrustment. Those courts reason that such claims become redundant once the company answers for the crash. However, most courts that follow this rule still make an exception when the plaintiff seeks punitive damages. Punitive damages require proof of the company’s own wrongful conduct, not just the driver’s actions. Because this area evolves and turns on specific facts, it directly affects what evidence you may demand and what damages you may pursue. This makes it exactly the kind of strategic decision worth discussing with an attorney early in the case rather than guessing the outcome.
It can make a big difference. When a freight broker arranges a load or when a truck displays one company’s markings but is leased and operated by a different carrier, determining which entity actually controlled the driver’s hiring, training, and safety supervision often requires a thorough investigation. Federal leasing rules at 49 CFR Part 376 typically place safety responsibility on the carrier that uses its own operating authority even when the truck and driver are technically leased from another source. Brokers and carriers, however, frequently argue over this point after an accident takes place. It is often necessary to identify all the companies involved in the chain. The carrier, the broker, and any leasing company—before it is even clear which one was responsible for hiring and supervision.
The time limit for personal injury claims in Utah is about four years under Utah Code § 78B-2-307. In certain cases, this period can be considerably shorter. If a government body or municipal fleet operated the vehicle involved in the crash, the Utah Governmental Immunity Act at le.utah.gov, Title 63G, Chapter 7, requires you to file a formal written notice of claim within a much shorter time frame, typically about one year, before you may file a lawsuit. You must meet this notice deadline, or you lose the claim entirely. This rule applies even though Utah’s general four-year limitation period for personal injury cases would still allow you to file otherwise. The applicable time limit can differ so greatly depending on who actually owned or operated the truck. It is one of the most important early actions in any truck accident case to promptly determine your exact time limit rather than assume that the four-year period applies.
Federal law sets minimum financial responsibility levels for interstate motor carriers under 49 CFR Part 387. Generally, at least $750,000 for trucks. Over 10,001 pounds hauling general freight, rising to $5,000,000 for carriers of certain hazardous materials. These are federal floors and not caps. Many carriers carry substantially higher limits, particularly larger interstate fleets moving freight through Utah’s corridors. A negligent hiring claim against the company stands entirely separate from any claim you bring against the driver personally. This separate claim may draw on broader insurance policies such as the company’s commercial general liability or umbrella coverage instead of relying only on the vehicle’s primary auto policy. This matters for a very practical reason.
Claims against government-operated fleets such as municipal utility trucks, school district vehicles, or state agency vehicles operate under rules completely separate from those governing private trucking companies. Utah’s Governmental Immunity Act requires you to submit a formal written notice of claim within a short deadline. It is generally about one year from the incident date. The Act may also limit the total amount you can recover regardless of how serious your injuries are. Authorities enforce these notice requirements strictly. They dismiss claims filed late or in the wrong form. You should therefore determine early on whether a government entity was involved. Don't just assume you are dealing with a private company.
See also: Who Can Be Held Liable in a Utah Truck Accident Case? , How Expert Witnesses Strengthen Utah Truck Accident Lawsuits
Kigan Martineau is a Partner at BAM Personal Injury Lawyers and an accomplished trial attorney representing injury victims across Utah and Idaho. A graduate at the top of his class from American University Washington College of Law, Kigan specializes in complex motor vehicle crashes, commercial trucking litigation, and wrongful death claims. He achieved the highest settlement in Southern Utah history and has helped secure over $100 million in cumulative resolutions for the firm’s clients.
"*" indicates required fields